Trinity Questions

[Guest]

What Stephen said was that he saw the "Son of Man" meaning that humanity which the Jews had crucified standing on the right hand of God.

The right hand of God is a Jewish phrase meaning the power of God. It is rarely use to imply a direction . . . and certainly it doen't mean a little Jesus was literally standing on the hand of God.

Blindseeker, is it possible that you are reading a whole lot into this, and are making explanations so as to fit your point?

I tend to be simplistic, and I take the Bible literally, and I certainly thought that he really DID see Jesus standing there. What is wrong with that? Stephen was being tortured and got relief by seeing his Saviour welcoming Him.

I also know Jesus is God. I just thought it one of those mysteries of God that I'm taking on faith and will be revealed to me in eternity.

I have a feeling I'm going to be sorry I entered this. LOL

[Guest Mormon Mike]

BlindSeeker has done a great job of showing that the term "Right hand of God"  can mean other things than a literal sense, but keep in mind it also has been shown to mean exactly what it says.

Look at Zechariah 3:1:

"And he showed me Joshua the high priest before the angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right hand to resist him."

Does this mean that Satan was given a place of honor by the high priest, or by the angel of the Lord? No. Satan is clearly a distinct being, held in dishonor by the Lord and His priests, but was physically at someone's right hand in this passage.

 

 Mike

[Guest Mormon Mike]

Timothy,

  I did not miss your post, I am giving it some thought.  I promise I am not avoiding the question, thanks for being patient.  

 Mike

[Timothy]

Excellent Mike. I just wanted to make sure you saw it.

[Work in Progress]

Work, there is nothing in the debate that is repugnant to me, I have heard both sides of the debate and they both sound convincing to me.  There is nothing that offends me about the belief in the Trinity; I hope I did not come across in that way.

No, you didn't. "Repugnant" was probably too strong. It's all I could think of at the moment. "Distasteful" probably would have been better.

Blindseeker - are you laughing with me, or at me?  :angry:   LOL

You knocked yourself out, buddy - you could have just made reference to all the times a physical part of God is mentioned and I would have gotten your point, lol.

And I do get your point - yes, I realize that God doesn't have wings either, as when we are under His "wing" of protection. However, just because physical limbs are not literal sometimes does not mean all the time. I do think that Jesus was standing at the right hand of God. (Jesus was literal, the 'right hand' was not, lol)

[angels4u]

Mike,

Tim was asking you who YOU think created the world,please read Genesis1:27  can you explain that verse to me?

I think it will give you the answer you were looking for!

"Then God said: "Let Us make man in our image, after OUR likeness. Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and the cattle, and over all the wild animals and all the creatures that crawl on the ground."

Angels

:thumb:

[Guest wwatch]

Dear Mormon Mike,

  Thanks for pointing out a possible misunderstandings that I could not  foresee because I know what I am tyring to say .

   What is an F22?

An F22 is a new fighter jet bomber that has just gone into production.  I have a son who is an aerospace engineer and he works on the project.   I made an assumption (they are so dangerous) that aerospace engineer + F22 might be recognized, but   :sleeping: .......

Now, as to your question....did I suggest that the finite mind cannot grasp the concept of the Trinity?   My friend.  I am going to reread what I wrote before I reply.  I want to give it some thought. Perhaps, you might (if you can stand it) reread some of it and let me know where it seems that I say the concept cannot be grasped.   Or, is it possible that I said something else that was close, but significantly different in practical application?         .   Or, let me be a little more helpful so you can help me.  I did not mean to say that the concept cannot be grasped or we would not be able to discuss it and dissect it and illustrate it.  But, I was describing a hermeneutical approach to Bible study and the use of all applicable scripture from the Bible that leads us to conclusions and affirmations, creeds and doctrines.   I said, in effect, that we know (in quantity and quality) what God wants us to know and it is all we need to know, but it is not the same thing as understanding it.  For instance, the Bible tells us that God knows the future.  That is a fact.  It is a conclusion.  It can be known and grasped by our finite minds and it is part of our understanding of the doctrine of God and His attributes.  But, that is not the same thing as understanding how God knows it or it is not an EXPLANATION.  But, it is truth.  By not demanding an explanation, we can rejoice in what we do know and permit that revealed truth to comfort and guide us by faith and hope.  Apply that to what I said about the Trinity and see if the question still remains or morphs into a different one.

  I even went further and said that this is the burden and the strenght and the gift of rugged "orthodoxy."  Orthodoxy takes what is revealed and simply affirms it even if it offends our finite minds.  We, Trinitarians, simply say that the bulk of scripture affirms this understanding even if it leaves mysteries and questions and a couple of "loose ends" based on the 90-10 rule.   I went to great lenght on the subject because of this.  In the end, we do not have to be able to explain every conceiveable question that can be forged to the satisfaction of the every questioner of a particular time or culture, but we do have to be faithful to the bulk of the revelation on a topic no matter how messy.  I even argued that this not a retreat or anti intellectual, but the way we apply logic to everything we do in a practical way.  The Trinity is an affront to Muslims 9and other rugged unitarian-theists) for one reason and a stumbling block to many others for varying reasons.  So, we do not present it or believe because it is fashionable or the easiest presentation (or is ecumenical), but because it is simply faithful to the majority of clear scripture.   And, then I said that practice, in the end, provides safety and protection for us, His children.

 Now, if any of this is helpful or interesting to anyone, wonderful.  If not, I don't think you can have me arrested   yet?  

Thanks MM

That is all for now.  

                                  wwatch

[Guest]

MM,

[Guest Mormon Mike]

Angels4u,

  I am aware of the question Tim had asked me, in fact if you scroll up I made a point to let him know I was not avoiding it but giving it some thought.  Also you miss-quoted the scripture, the one you posted is in fact Gen 1:26 not verse 27.  I posted an interesting fact about that scripture earlier, Gen. 1:26,27, for example, where the plural noun "Elohim" which literally means "Gods" speaks as a plural entity, saying "let US make man in OUR image.

[Guest]

BlindSeeker has done a great job of showing that the term "Right hand of God"