• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Biblical Mary!

shunyadragon

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
metis said:
"Essence" implies they're not entirely "distinct".
Click to expand...
Essence is described as tributes of somethings, and implies they share the same attributes. That is not an adequate basis for the Trinity.

Biblically the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are described as different and distinct. This id not much different than some forms of polytheism in Vedic culture where the different Gods share the attributes of the Brahma. Polytheism is polytheism you cannot dress it up in something to make it something else.
jimb said:
Clearly you don't understand the fundamental truth of Christianity: there is one God.
Click to expand...
Yes, and it is not the Trinitarian multiple Gods
 
jimb

jimb

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
shunyadragon said:
Essence is described as tributes of somethings, and implies they share the same attributes. That is not an adequate basis for the Trinity.

Biblically the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are described as different and distinct. This id not much different than some forms of polytheism in Vedic culture where the different Gods share the attributes of the Brahma. Polytheism is polytheism you cannot dress it up in something to make it something else.

Yes, and it is not the Trinitarian multiple Gods
Click to expand...
Trinitarian multiple Gods??? Are you just joking around?
 
jimb

jimb

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
shunyadragon said:
Essence is described as tributes of somethings, and implies they share the same attributes. That is not an adequate basis for the Trinity.

Biblically the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are described as different and distinct. This id not much different than some forms of polytheism in Vedic culture where the different Gods share the attributes of the Brahma. Polytheism is polytheism you cannot dress it up in something to make it something else.

Yes, and it is not the Trinitarian multiple Gods
Click to expand...
Trinitarian multiple Gods??? Are you just joking around?
shunyadragon said:
Yes: God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost with God the Son seated on the right hand of God the Father.
Click to expand...
So you do understand. (Jesus is not sitting on God's hand! LOL)
 
shunyadragon

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
jimb said:
Trinitarian multiple Gods??? Are you just joking around?

So you do understand. (Jesus is not sitting on God's hand! LOL)
Click to expand...
Sorry for the typo, of course it is 'at' not 'on' the right hand of God.

Yes literally . . .

Hebrews 10:12-13 notes, “But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet.” Because Jesus reigns along with God the Father Almighty who created and rules over the world

Judaism after about 600 BCE is truly a Monotheistic religion
 
metis

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
shunyadragon said:
Essence is described as tributes of somethings, and implies they share the same attributes. That is not an adequate basis for the Trinity.
Click to expand...

That simply is not true. For example, I am of the "essence" of my father and my mother even though I obviously also have some differences. Thus, it's not either/or with "essence" but a matter of degrees.

We also know that this concept was used at the Council at Nicaea, so there's really no speculation. And it's obvious through the Gospels that it is used this way, such as when it says Jesus prayed to the Father. If they're supposedly one and the same, this wouldn't make any sense.
 
shunyadragon

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
metis said:
That simply is not true. For example, I am of the "essence" of my father and my mother even though I obviously also have some differences. Thus, it's not either/or with "essence" but a matter of degrees.
Click to expand...
I agree, different individuals or things can share the same essence.
metis said:
We also know that this concept was used at the Council at Nicaea, so there's really no speculation. And it's obvious through the Gospels that it is used this way, such as when it says Jesus prayed to the Father. If they're supposedly one and the same, this wouldn't make any sense.
Click to expand...
Of course they are not one and the same. They are described as three separate Gods with separate identities. OK, they share the same essence as in Vedic Gods.
 
shunyadragon

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
metis said:
Nope, as the only power they have comes from God.
Click to expand...
Nope?!?!?! Your argument concerning the term 'essence' failed so you turn to stonewalling ignoring the actual facts of the history of the belief.

I agree that IF God exists all power comes from God, but your negating that the scripture describes a Trune set of three separate Gods and a Goddess MAry Mother of God and Queen of Heaven by simply plain definition.

Hebrews 10:12-13 notes, “But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet.” Because Jesus reigns along with God the Father Almighty who created and rules over the world

Judaism is a true Monotheistic religion after !600 BCE. The Trinity in Christian theology is Roman Hellenist Tritheism.
 
Last edited:
shunyadragon

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
metis said:
That simply is not true. For example, I am of the "essence" of my father and my mother even though I obviously also have some differences. Thus, it's not either/or with "essence" but a matter of degrees.

We also know that this concept was used at the Council at Nicaea, so there's really no speculation. And it's obvious through the Gospels that it is used this way, such as when it says Jesus prayed to the Father. If they're supposedly one and the same, this wouldn't make any sense.
Click to expand...
The flaws in your arguments and even those who interpret a different view of scripture without the Trinity, remains problematic to define one's belief in God based on the interpretation of ancient scripture without provenance,. The problem is amplified by the diverse conflicting scriptures and interpretations in the history of humanity each describing God or Gods or no Gods based on their interpretation of their own scripture. This compounded that most believe in some form of the religion that is handed down to us from out peers culture and family.

You may rationalize your interpretation of the Trinitarian God, based on your beliefs, but so do those who reference the same scripture and justify a non-Trinitarian God. I read the scripture and see the possibility that it describes a Polytheistic hierarchy of Gods.

As far as the reality of a 'Source' some call God(s) it is increasingly like that we are all wrong. I do believe from a more universal perspective if there is a 'Source' some call Gog(s) or by other names that Sources is universal beyond any of the conflicting tribal beliefs from the human perspective.
 
shunyadragon

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Niatero said:
No, but from your previous post it looked to me like you don't want to know what my ideas are, because I can't specify any sources, which honestly looks to me like a lame excuse for not wanting to know what I think. Although, now that I think of it, I did give one example, Larry Hurtado. Another example is the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Trinity (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) Another is articles about the views of various authors on all sides of historical Jesus debates, but I can't specify which ones. I can never read the works of the authors themselves because the paywalls are too high for me. Another example is articles about the quests for a historical Jesus, but I can't specify which articles I read. Probably Wikipedia. Possibly the sources that I use the most are Wikipedia and LLM chatbots.
Click to expand...
A similar copy of a post sent to @metis

The flaws in your arguments and even those who interpret a different view of scripture without the Trinity, remains problematic to define one's belief in God based on the interpretation of ancient scripture without provenance, This is exemplified by your description of your sources in that your goal appears to justify your belief. The problem is amplified by the diverse conflicting scriptures and interpretations in the history of humanity each describing God or Gods or no Gods based on their interpretation of their own scripture.

The primary motivation among humans to seek a sense of belonging and identity. This most often results iningmost believe in some form of the religion that is handed down to us from our peers, culture and family.

You may rationalize your interpretation of the Trinitarian God, based on your beliefs, but so do those who reference the same scripture and justify a non-Trinitarian God. I read the scripture and see the possibility that it describes a Polytheistic hierarchy of Gods.

As far as the reality of a 'Source' some call God(s) it is increasingly like that we are all wrong. I do believe from a more universal perspective if there is a 'Source' some call Gog(s) or by other names that Sources is universal beyond any of the conflicting tribal beliefs from the human perspective.
 
Last edited:
YoursTrue

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
metis said:
"Essence" implies they're not entirely "distinct".
Click to expand...
It does? I've been following this conversation a little bit. It helps (for me) to understand that when Jesus said he and the Father are one, he did not say he was the Father. Anyway, right now I won't go any further with that. By the way, metis, I hope you know by now that I respect you.
 
Niatero

Niatero

*banned*
YoursTrue said:
It does? I've been following this conversation a little bit. It helps (for me) to understand that when Jesus said he and the Father are one, he did not say he was the Father. Anyway, right now I won't go any further with that.
Click to expand...
All of the Trinitarian churches teach that the Son is not the Father, explicitly in those exact words, "The Son is not the Father." That means that saying that Jesus is God can only be in some sense of oneness, and what Christian doesn't agree with that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top