NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/talk/religion/misc/21722

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-20 | 3.3 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!sun-barr!news2me.EBay.Sun.COM!exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!sun!amdahl!JUTS!agr00
From: [e-mail] (Anthony G Rose)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Why Anthony Rose Wouldn't Answer
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 21 Nov 92 04:06:01 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Anthony G Rose)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA
Lines: 53

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robert O'Barr) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Anthony G Rose) writes:
>>
>>The Greek word for "one" that you are having such a problem with is:
>>
>>"HEIS"  =  One in Unity.  For example, one room has three aspects, height,
>>           width and length.  While each of these three aspects are
>>           separate, the height fills the whole room, the width fills the
>>           whole room, and the length fills the whole room.  They are all
>>           three, the whole room separately, yet there is only ONE room.
>
>Hi Tony,
>
>Perhaps you could post the definition from the Greek dictionary so
>we could all make up our minds what it means instead of you
>"forcing" your own belief onto the definition?
>
>I've never heard more ludicrous logic than when I hear people try to
>explain the nature of the God head.  Tony, if you have a room with
>*ONLY* a length but without a height or width, guess what?  You do
>not have a room that any three dimensional being could see or enter
>into and rest for the night!  The same goes for no length or width
>or for no length or height.  The correct conclusion for your
>"example" would be that together they are one room, apart neither
>of them is by itself a room.

Of course, you didn't read what I said.  I didn't say that one WAS the
room without the others.  I said that one, completely FILLS the room by
itself.  The width of a room, fills the whole room.  That was my point.

>>The issue of the Trinity is not simple to understand.  However, Scripture
>>makes it really clear to us that there is ONLY ONE GOD, and then it calls
>>the Father God, The Son God, and The Holy Spirit God.  We are forced to
>>the conclusion of the Trinity.  I grant it that it is not easy to
>
>The Bible only forces us to conclude as you say, the Father, Son,
>and Holy Spirit are one God and yet each individually is God.  This
>does not force us to the conclusion of the trinity as expressed by
>the majority of protestants and the roman catholics.  The key is
>understanding what is meant by "one God", and I have yet to see
>evidence that the greek means what you say it does.  If 'one' in the
>passage of discussion really means one in unity, then it goes to
>support what Frank has said.  A football team can be 'one in unity'
>but yet each player is his own individual self.
>
>Robert

I admit, as I did before, that this issue of the Trinity is one that is
hard for our infinite minds to comprehend.  However, when the Bible tells
us that there is only ONE God, and beside Him there is NO OTHER, and there
will be none formed before or after, Him, that that rules out any
possiblity of "The Father having a body of flesh and bones as tangeble as
mans, the Son also....."  (D&C 130:22).  Because that would be two Gods!