Muslims in Balkan Should Promote Europe of Peace and Hope

[Vangelovski]

Vangelovski
My view is that the Trinity is open for interpretation, as evidenced by the discussions taking place, these are active interpretations.

What discussions? I'm still waiting to here your interpretation of the Trinity. You keep claiming that it is open to interpretation but I can't see you putting forward an alternative interpretation.

All you have done is to say someone is entitled to give an interpretation without reading the Bible or knowing anything about the Trinity. I agree, they are entitled to an opinion, but what I disagree with is that such an opinion or interpretation would be intellectually honest, right or informed and therefore I question the value of such an interpretation.

I could say the housing market will burst tomorrow and I would be entitled to hold that opinion, but what value is that opinion if I know nothing about the housing market? I dare say zero and it would only be one wild guess.

[Risto the Great]

My view is that the Trinity is open for interpretation

Not for modern Christians. I wouldn't go there. I don't think there is any room on that.

[makedonche]

Vangelovski

What discussions?

Is this a serious question or are being intellectually dishonest?
The discussions that commenced around #116 onwards.

I'm still waiting to here your interpretation of the Trinity.

And when did I say I'm going to provide an interpretation? You're waiting for nothing!

[QUOTE][You keep claiming that it is open to interpretation but I can't see you putting forward an alternative interpretation./QUOTE]

The fact that other members have put forward alternate views demonstrates it is open to interpretation, how many more do you need as evidence of different interpretations?

All you have done is to say someone is entitled to give an interpretation without reading the Bible or knowing anything about the Trinity. I agree, they are entitled to an opinion, but what I disagree with is that such an opinion or interpretation would be intellectually honest, right or informed and therefore I question the value of such an interpretation.

Please show me the part that I said "someone is entitled to give an opinion without reading the Bible", please quote me correctly! Nice to see you agree they are entitled to an opinion, whether you think it's intellectually honest is your interpretation and your fully entitled to it, whether you think it has value is your interpretation and you are fully entitled to it!

I could say the housing market will burst tomorrow and I would be entitled to hold that opinion, but what value is that opinion if I know nothing about the housing market? I dare say zero and it would only be one wild guess.

Now you're being intellectually dishonest with this charade of an analogy. I am not convinced in the slightest that you know "zero and it would only be one wild guess"

[Vangelovski]

Is this a serious question or are being intellectually dishonest?
The discussions that commenced around #116 onwards.

Yes, it is a serious question. I haven't discussed the Trinity with anyone here. No one has offered me an alternative interpretation for me to discuss.

And when did I say I'm going to provide an interpretation? You're waiting for nothing!

You keep saying there are different interpretations of the Trinity. That's why I'm asking you to provide one. If you can't, then what's your point? It seems to me that you are just arguing there are different interpretations of the Trinity solely for the sake of arguing.

The fact that other members have put forward alternate views demonstrates it is open to interpretation, how many more do you need as evidence of different interpretations?

Where are these other interpretations of the Trinity? Can you please quote them for me so that I can read them?

Please show me the part that I said "someone is entitled to give an opinion without reading the Bible", please quote me correctly!

This is what I orginally stated:

I don't believe one could undertake an honest study of the Bible in its entirety and provide a different interpretation on the Trinity that stood up to evidence in the text.

If you're referring to an "interpretation" based on someone having read a few bits and pieces here and there (which you suggest in the text I highlighted in your quote), then anyone could interpret anything however they wished. While they may honestly hold that view, its not an informed view or an intellectually honest interpretation based on the entirety of the given text.

You have been challenging that assertion this whole time, claiming the following:

Everything is open to individuals interpretations, based on their knowledge/experience/education and upbringing, including the Trinity!

You also imply that one could provide an interpretation of the Trinity without reading the Bible here:

Vangelovski
For example anyone who hasn't fully read and understood the previous explanation, may well still hold the view that there is only one God, however Jesus was his son - and consider them separate.

And here:

When you're having a discussion on a forum it's based on what's being discussed and written in relation to it, not based on complete readings of texts or honest bible studies, it's people's opinions or views at that time.

Are you now saying that one must read the Bible in order to provide a useful, correct and intellectually honest interpretation of the Trinity?

[makedonche]

Vangelovski

Yes, it is a serious question. I haven't discussed the Trinity with anyone here. No one has offered me an alternative interpretation for me to discuss.

Start from #116 and read through comments to date.

You keep saying there are different interpretations of the Trinity. That's why I'm asking you to provide one. If you can't, then what's your point? It seems to me that you are just arguing there are different interpretations of the Trinity solely for the sake of arguing.

Start from #116, it's right there in front of you. I am stating there are and will be different interpretations based on peoples knowledge/education/experience and upbringing, you are arguing or trying to argue there aren't any other interpretations - big assumption!

Where are these other interpretations of the Trinity? Can you please quote them for me so that I can read them?

Start from #116 and read through carefully, if you look closely enough you'll find them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by makedonche View Post
Please show me the part that I said "someone is entitled to give an opinion without reading the Bible", please quote me correctly!
This is what I orginally stated:

What you originally stated, not what I stated, hence the misquote.

[QUOTE][Quote:
Originally Posted by Vangelovski View Post
I don't believe one could undertake an honest study of the Bible in its entirety and provide a different interpretation on the Trinity that stood up to evidence in the text.

If you're referring to an "interpretation" based on someone having read a few bits and pieces here and there (which you suggest in the text I highlighted in your quote), then anyone could interpret anything however they wished. While they may honestly hold that view, its not an informed view or an intellectually honest interpretation based on the entirety of the given text.
You have been challenging that assertion this whole time, claiming the following:/QUOTE]

I have been stating all the time that there are different interpretations and there are entitled to be different interpretations, based on peoples knowledge/experience/education and upbringing, if your assertion is that there are no other interpretations or not entitled to be any other interpretations, then yes I challenge that assertion!

You also imply that one could provide an interpretation of the Trinity without reading the Bible here:

Quote:
Originally Posted by makedonche View Post
Vangelovski
For example anyone who hasn't fully read and understood the previous explanation, may well still hold the view that there is only one God, however Jesus was his son - and consider them separate.

How did you manage to extract an implication that one could provide an interpretation of the Trinity without reading the Bible, out of that? It is a view that people will hold an opinion based on their knowledge etc, which is their interpretation of it.

And here:

Quote:
When you're having a discussion on a forum it's based on what's being discussed and written in relation to it, not based on complete readings of texts or honest bible studies, it's people's opinions or views at that time.
Are you now saying that one must read the Bible in order to provide a useful, correct and intellectually honest interpretation of the Trinity?

More assumptions, extractions and implications. If I was saying people need to read the Bible to provide useful, correct and intellectually honest interpretations of the Trinity, I would have said so, I didn't so stop trying to imply that I did, and allow people to have their opinions, views and interpretations on the Trinity, the Bible, the Jews, the Old Testament, the New Testament or whatever that wish to interpret

[Nikolaj]

Not for modern Christians. I wouldn't go there. I don't think there is any room on that.

Makedonce, by all means it's fine to believe something should be up for interpretation, excellent! But.. your basis for re-interpretation is equivalent to interpreting why a blue pen writes in blue. Then for you to say you won't explain your basis for re-interpretation shows you have none, and is only to leave your opponent skeptical about the integrity of their interpretation. I think you do have a reason for re-interpretation, but I think you should at least speak up haha.

Risto ... don't generalise Christians as these douchebags who aren't open for opinions or discussion.

If anything it has been exactly the opposite throughout this entire thread, quite evidently... I think you won't go there for other reasons.



I'm not getting involved in any of these conversations and I explained why much earlier in this thread, but I would like to at least shape you guys on track for a proper discussion. I feel it's getting a little egotistic in here.

[George S.]

How do you propose to interpret the bible?
At least the bible zhould bd allowed to interpret itself.

[Nikolaj]

How do you propose to interpret the bible?
At least the bible should be allowed to interpret itself.

There's no proper standard for interpreting the bible as far as I know George.

People can interpret it however they want, and if they have a reason to disagree with someone else's interpretation, they should at least provide an explanation or reason to why, or simply refrain from getting into a discussion about it in the first place.

It's like me walking up to a clinic working on a cure for cancer and saying "I have a cure for cancer", but then to only walk away. This only distracts the workers of the clinic, and hinders their flow of actually finding a cure.

[Philosopher]

Establishing the veracity of the doctrine of the Trinity can only be undertaken from a deep analysis of the Bible -- the Old and New Covenants.

It is clear from this analysis that the New Covenant writers proclaimed the "Father" is God; the "Son" is God; and the "Holy Spirit" is God. And yet, the Bible's singular message is that there is one God.

[makedonche]

Nikolaj

Makedonce, by all means it's fine to believe something should be up for interpretation, excellent! But.. your basis for re-interpretation is equivalent to interpreting why a blue pen writes in blue. Then for you to say you won't explain your basis for re-interpretation shows you have none, and is only to leave your opponent skeptical about the integrity of their interpretation. I think you do have a reason for re-interpretation, but I think you should at least speak up haha.

Read Philosophers statement below and you will then get an idea of my interpretation.

It is clear from this analysis that the New Covenant writers proclaimed the "Father" is God; the "Son" is God; and the "Holy Spirit" is God. And yet, the Bible's singular message is that there is one God.
Today 12:21 PM

If you go back and read one of my intitial views/questions, it relates to this statement, and my view was based on my education/knowledge/experience and upbringing. This should be obvious enough to demonstrate a different interpretation of the Trinity, maybe not the entire doctrine, but the point raised and in question.

[Vangelovski]

Vangelovski

Start from #116 and read through comments to date.

Start from #116, it's right there in front of you. I am stating there are and will be different interpretations based on peoples knowledge/education/experience and upbringing, you are arguing or trying to argue there aren't any other interpretations - big assumption!

Start from #116 and read through carefully, if you look closely enough you'll find them.

I have discussed whether it is possible to have an alternate interpretation of the Trinity with you, but I have never actually discussed an alternative interpretation of the Trinity with anyone on this thread. If you actually think that I have, then you can easily quote where I have done so. I know you know how to quote, so I'm not sure why you keep suggesting I have discussed an alternative interpretation of the Trinity with anyone but refuse to actually quote where I have?

I have been stating all the time that there are different interpretations and there are entitled to be different interpretations, based on peoples knowledge/experience/education and upbringing, if your assertion is that there are no other interpretations or not entitled to be any other interpretations, then yes I challenge that assertion!

It would help if you read my posts more carefully. We've already established that we both agree that everyone is entitled to an opinion. I've never suggested that people cannot invent alternative interpretations of the Trinity. What I am saying is that anyone who undertook an honest study of the Bible would be very hard pressed to actually develop an alternative interpretation of the Trinity that would stand up against the evidence available in the Bible.

If I was saying people need to read the Bible to provide useful, correct and intellectually honest interpretations of the Trinity, I would have said so, I didn't so stop trying to imply that I did

Please show me the part that I said "someone is entitled to give an opinion without reading the Bible"

Do you think the above two statements are in contradiction to each other? I do. And that is why I'm now completely confused as to what you are saying.

If you go back and read one of my intitial views/questions, it relates to this statement, and my view was based on my education/knowledge/experience and upbringing. This should be obvious enough to demonstrate a different interpretation of the Trinity, maybe not the entire doctrine, but the point raised and in question.

Your idea about Jesus was not an alternative interpretation of the Trinity, it is actually a rejection of the Trinity. You said you did not know Jesus was God - how could there be a Trinity without Jesus being God? That is a completely different question.

But now that you have raised this point as your "alternative interpretation" of the Trinity, can you please explain what exactly constitutes your "education/knowledge/experience" and whether it has any basis in the Bible, which is the only primary source that concerns itself with the Trinity?

[Risto the Great]

Risto ... don't generalise Christians as these douchebags who aren't open for opinions or discussion.

If anything it has been exactly the opposite throughout this entire thread, quite evidently... I think you won't go there for other reasons.

You clearly misunderstood me and I definitely do not generalise all Christians as douche-bags.

Arguing about Christianity and denying the concept of the Trinity is ridiculous. It is like saying you are a Port Power supporter and you're not missing teeth. It is irreconcilable in my mind. It is why I said it isn't worth "going there" and was supporting the Christian outlook from a definitional sense.

It wasn't anticipating any inevitable douche-bag rant whatsoever when I said it.

If you are Christian, you are believing Jesus is the son of God and he is God. It isn't much of a leap to talk about the holy spirit if you are already in that far. So the Trinity concept should be embraced by all Christians in my mind.

So don't put words in my mouth thanks.

[Nikolaj]

You clearly misunderstood me and I definitely do not generalise all Christians as douche-bags.

Arguing about Christianity and denying the concept of the Trinity is ridiculous. It is like saying you are a Port Power supporter and you're not missing teeth. It is irreconcilable in my mind. It is why I said it isn't worth "going there" and was supporting the Christian outlook from a definitional sense.

It wasn't anticipating any inevitable douche-bag rant whatsoever when I said it.

If you are Christian, you are believing Jesus is the son of God and he is God. It isn't much of a leap to talk about the holy spirit if you are already in that far. So the Trinity concept should be embraced by all Christians in my mind.

So don't put words in my mouth thanks.

You said the holy trinity is not open for interpretation for 'modern christians'. That is generalising the opinion of Christians.

If that Christian person is not up for other evident interpretations, yes he is an in-denial douchebag. I did not say you called Christians douchebags, your comment would imply they are though, even if you didn't mean it that way.

So Risto, my apologies if I have offended you, I know it was unanticipated, I know you're better than that.

Makedonce in reference to Philosophers post I can see why you're skeptical because you have identified a contradiction within the text, but you haven't found an answer for it. I'm not saying you need to have an answer, but the people who have been in your position have made their interpretation; it is a viable interpretation, it doesn't mean it is exactly correct but it is the best one we have so far.

A lot of Monks say they and we cannot fathom what the holy trinity actually is so you're not alone.

[George S.]

How many times have I have to explain it that the council of
NICEA DECLARED a lot of things that are fase religion and false doctfines.THey changed alot of things like sunday as the seventh day.GOd says remember the dabsth go krep it holy.
ALso oyher yhings like the trinity was adopted.CoNtrary tk bible teachings.
God is one buy when god brkngs his kingdom
Therd will be many sons of god.God is really teproducing his kind in man.
SO GOD will be one god not 3persons
But literally yrillions of people.Do not underestimate gods power.
After all is daid anf fone its not what you did but god, s doing.

[Vangelovski]

How many times have I have to explain it that the council of
NICEA DECLARED a lot of things that are fase religion and false doctfines.THey changed alot of things like sunday as the seventh day.GOd says remember the dabsth go krep it holy.
ALso oyher yhings like the trinity was adopted.CoNtrary tk bible teachings.
God is one buy when god brkngs his kingdom
Therd will be many sons of god.God is really teproducing his kind in man.
SO GOD will be one god not 3persons
But literally yrillions of people.Do not underestimate gods power.
After all is daid anf fone its not what you did but god, s doing.

George, can you provide any Biblical passages to support that view?