Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [biblicalapologetics] Re: From Patrick Navas

Expand Messages
  • Patrick Navas
    Rob, You managed to evade my question for the second time by saying: Patrick, your question assumes that I think the apostles were holding something back in
    Message 1 of 40 , Jun 1, 2010

      Rob,

      You managed to evade my question for the second time by saying:

      Patrick, your question assumes that I think the apostles were holding something back in their teaching. I don’t think any such thing. They taught what they taught in the words they chose under divine inspiration to use. They did not articulate explicitly, “clearly and directly” as you put it, any of the systematic theologies that later developed. That is, they do not teach in explicit form Unitarianism, Arianism, Modalism/Monarchianism, or Trinitarianism. So the exact same hypothetical question that you asked could be posed to a Christadelphian, a Jehovah’s Witness, or a Oneness Pentecostal.

      You used the expression I used (held back) as a basis for rejecting the vailidity of my question, even though I'm quite sure you know what I meant by that. So let me ask it for the last time.

      Assuming Jesus and his apostles believed in the Trinity, why do you think the writers of Scripture did not formally present the doctrine of the Trinity to us (example: There is one God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) when that is what they did with every other important Christian doctrine? Did they deliberately refrain from doing this in your view? If so, what do you think the purpose was?

      Patrick

       
       

       


      From: Rob <faithhasitsreasons@...>
      To: biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Mon, May 31, 2010 12:38:17 AM
      Subject: [biblicalapologetics] Re: From Patrick Navas

       

      Patrick,

      I'm guessing you can see the relevance of my question to yours. If you can't, let me know. And for the record, I responded to what I think is essentially the same question from you on the Parchment and Pen blog.

      In Christ's service,
      Rob Bowman

      --- In biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Navas <patrick_navas@...> wrote:
      >
      > Rob,
      >
      > In all sincerity, I'm not trying to play back and forth games or anything. I'd be happy to address your question from my perspective (I recently did for a friend of mine), but is it fair for you to do this given that you really never answered my question?
      >
      > --Patrick
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > ________________________________
      > From: Rob <faithhasitsreasons@...>
      > To: biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com
      > Sent: Sat, May 29, 2010 12:55:59 AM
      > Subject: [biblicalapologetics] Re: From Patrick Navas
      >
      >  
      > Patrick,
      >
      > Here's a question for you. Is it important to know which books are in the Bible? If it is, why don't any of the biblical writers give us a list of the books that belong in the Bible?
      >
      > In Christ's service,
      > Rob Bowman
      >

    • Paul Leonard
      Hi Rob, Nope, I haven t had time. Paul, Have you followed the debate? In Christ s service, Rob Bowman
      Message 40 of 40 , Jun 6, 2010

        Hi Rob,

        Nope, I haven't had time.

         

        Paul,

        Have you followed the debate?

        In Christ's service,
        Rob Bowman

        --- In biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com, Paul Leonard <anotherpaul2001@...> wrote:
        >
        > Hi Rob,
        >
        > Since you agree the Trinity is not "explicit" in Scripture, can you give any evidence based as you say on the language and culture of their day, that it is even "implicit" rather than a case of eisegesis?
        >
        > Paul
        >
        >
        > I have already answered your question. The NT writers were not deliberately refraining from saying what they believed. They said what they believed in the language of their day and culture. They did not use explicit Trinitarian language because that language was developed later.
        >
        > You're wasting your time. I won't allow you to continue wasting mine.
        >
        > In Christ's service,
        > Rob Bowman
        >

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.