CADRE Comments

Here are my pages on Trinity from Doxa. Very complex huge amount of stuff,it would be well worth reading and studying.The pages below are all linked but if the link doesn't work the first one is to the page on Doxa those links will work.

http://www.doxa.ws/Trinity/Trinitysubsub.html

(linked)

Johonnie Theology and The Triune God

Part 2 of John's Theology

Part 3 John's Theology: Jn 8:44.

Pauline Theology and The Triune God.

The Triune God in Hebrew Thought?

More on Memra and Trinity

Targimum and Trinity

The Holy Spirit.

Overview of the Doctirne


The Trinity is a doctrine of Church, that is, it developed over time (from about the second to the fourth centuries) in response to a continuing need. The first emergence of Trinitarian thinking was in response to the question of Christian identity. With Gnosticism infiltrating the church, the Bishops had to find a way of understanding who was a believer and who was not, and of demonstrating this in a clear and definite way. The Gnostic hearsay a…

On Christmas Eve a couple of days ago I did a piece called "Christmas and the crucified God." It was received pretty well but it's the third time I ran it. The last time was Christmas 2013. Looking back at it that copy I noticed a comment that was ironic and heart breaking.

This blog, comments, Dec. 13, 2013:

I will admit that having read you for a while now I do get confused about a particular thing - most of your theology seems to be based around a more nebulous, all-encompassing, almost deist view of god (vs the big man in the sky) and metaphysical transitions that are only hinted at in the Bible narrative, which you normally regard as allegory and mythology. Yet at one point or another, you will make a statement that implies a commitment to the Bible as a literal document demanding worship, water baptism, sinner's prayer, etc. If you hit a slow point in your writing next year I would love to see an explanation of how you marry these concepts. For me, if you don&…

Colin Blakemore (Neuroscience, Oxford) argues that Science is just one gene away from defeating religion.[1]Despite his great advancement in that scientific field he demonstrates a very callow understanding of religion. Thus we must once again assume that is just another case of the golden ghetto. Or perhaps the ivory ghetto. A very advanced person in a scientific field is not necessarily qualified to apply scinece to religion. This post modern age reveals more and more the tower similarities between culture and the tower of Babel story.

Blakemore reveals in his opening paragraph that he says the relationship bewteen religion and science as "a ches match." It's adversarial, it's a combat. Thus advances in science are automatically viewed as detraction for religion. He intimates this when he says that the discoveries of Watson and Crick were a defeat for religion because previously life was a mystery that implied spiritual magic. So this guy is not on bard with under…

Much of Apologetics work is really about making sure people who are critical of the Bible understand that the Bible is internally coherent. One biblical account that I have seen pointed out as showing God not to be consistent is the story of Balaam and his donkey as recounted in Numbers 22.

Of course, the main problem that some people have with the passages is that God opens the mouth of the donkey to have it speak to Balaam. But the idea that God -- the one who created and animates all life -- could allow a donkey to speak what was on its mind is surprising but not logically impossible. Usually the person who rejects the Biblical narrative on that basis is merely stating his or her pre-existing worldview as an unbreakable barrier to belief in a Biblical worldview. So, as a practical matter of Apologetics, I would never try to counter their objection to the talking donkey as the first step in speaking to such a person. They need to first come into an appreciation that if God exists, H…