Christians: The Trinity Fails to Describe God.

[metis]

Post #88 is a good example of the logical disconnect tri-unists must make to support their theory that “3 is really 1” in natural, logical life.

See my last post, #100.

 

[sojourner]

Is God the Father and God the Son the same being?

The Trinity says yes using that same scripture the bishops used in John 10:30, where the Father is One with the Son and the Son with the Father. They are the same being. For there can only be One God. And that God is Jesus, and Jesus is the Father and His spirit is the Holy Ghost.

At the same time, someone with reason and common sense is looking at this and saying, "Wait, What!?"

So you're telling me, that every time Jesus was praying, the time He stated, "Not my will, but thine, be done", the time He told his disciples, in John 5:30, I can do nothing of my self, but of the Father which has sent me?" Or Mark 10: 18 Where he states that only God is good. How can we make sense of this in a Trinity mind set?

The answer is we cannot. Or we can try to by bending a whole lot of scripture to a very uncomfortable and confusing way making the whole meaning of God to everyone as clear as mud.

So the only question really to answer, is what do we do about the whole Monotheism thing we got going for us? What about all the times God tells us that there is only One God? How can Jesus be God and this Father figure be God, and this Holy Spirit be God? Would that make us believe in three Gods, without the idea of the Trinity?

You’ve got a weally skwewy idea of the doctrine. It appears as though you can’t wrap your mind around the concept that 3 Persons can (and do) share one Being. That Being is ... God. It’s really not that difficult. You also appear to reject the idea that a Jesus is capable of being both fully human and fully divine.

 

[cataway]

You’ve got a weally skwewy idea of the doctrine. It appears as though you can’t wrap your mind around the concept that 3 Persons can (and do) share one Being. That Being is ... God. It’s really not that difficult. You also appear to reject the idea that a Jesus is capable of being both fully human and fully divine.

when you wright stuff like that ,do you ever stop and read what you put in print ?

 

[sojourner]

when you wright stuff like that ,do you ever stop and read what you put in print ?

I always write intentionally. The kind of “analysis” put forth in that post was infantile to the point of cartoonery. When you write stuff like that, do you ever stop and consider that no one died and made you the forum police?

 

[YoursTrue]

You’ve got a weally skwewy idea of the doctrine. It appears as though you can’t wrap your mind around the concept that 3 Persons can (and do) share one Being. That Being is ... God. It’s really not that difficult. You also appear to reject the idea that a Jesus is capable of being both fully human and fully divine.

So three persons "share one being"? Wow, I'm impressed. (It's getting worse...) And remember -- you think the Bible is quite a bit of mythical accounts, such as God causing Mary to get pregnant without having sexual relations -- well, at least one of the persons in the "being" you talk about... Anyway, carry on with your stories -- just to say, you don't believe the Bible anyway, yet you're going to explain how "God" is 3 persons in one being, and then say someone can't wrap their mind around it? LOLOL, ok! (Have a good day, sojourner...)

 

[YoursTrue]

That's a non-sequitur in terms of your response to my last post, so I guess we aren't communicating too well. The above in no way goes against the Trinitarian concept.

Finally, I personally don't believe in the Trinitarian concept, but neither do I disbelieve in it. However, it is logical as far as what it teaches if one truly understands the concept of "essence" as applied here, but just because it's logical doesn't mean that it is correct. To me, it's at least somewhat similar to the Hindu concept of "manifestations", such as the "manifestations of Brahma" that still just posits one God (Brahma) but having Him taking different forms.

In other words, as far as you're concerned, maybe it (the Trinity) is, and maybe it isn't.

 

[sojourner]

So three persons "share one being"? Wow, I'm impressed.

What is "being?" Is it not existence? Are you saying that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit do not share existence? In Genesis, God referred to God's Self as "I AM." "Am" = existence -- being.

And remember -- you think the Bible is quite a bit of mythical accounts, such as God causing Mary to get pregnant without having sexual relations

I didn't say that. I said that the virgin birth story was mythic, not "mythical." There's a difference. Learn it. You'll be less confused.

just to say, you don't believe the Bible anyway

Just to say you have no idea what I do or do not believe, and you're neither qualified nor authorized to make a determination. I certainly don't believe the Bible in the same way you do, but that doesn't mean I don't believe it.

 

[metis]

In other words, as far as you're concerned, maybe it (the Trinity) is, and maybe it isn't.

Or it may be partially correct/partially wrong. Who knows for sure?

But denominations do have the right and the general obligation to formulate and teach what they believe to be most likely correct, but then we also have the right as individuals to take those teachings and judge for ourselves. Our priest knows I basically question everything, as scientists tend to do, and yet he welcomed me back into the church after me being gone for over 20 years. Ceiling almost caved in though.

 

[YoursTrue]

@metis,
May I ask what power your priest has? Is he capable of answering your questions? The supreme court makes decisions. They're all intelligent people. They sometimes disagree yet a decision can stand or be enforced. Each of us stands before God, the great decision-maker.

 

[YoursTrue]

What is "being?" Is it not existence? Are you saying that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit do not share existence? In Genesis, God referred to God's Self as "I AM." "Am" = existence -- being.


I didn't say that. I said that the virgin birth story was mythic, not "mythical." There's a difference. Learn it. You'll be less confused.

Just to say you have no idea what I do or do not believe, and you're neither qualified nor authorized to make a determination. I certainly don't believe the Bible in the same way you do, but that doesn't mean I don't believe it.

oh wait a minute. Yes apparently I do misunderstand you. You think maybe she was a virgin, maybe she was not. In your court of personal and extended opinion, you don't say yea or nay, do I understand correctly?

 

[YoursTrue]

Or it may be partially correct/partially wrong. Who knows for sure?

But denominations do have the right and the general obligation to formulate and teach what they believe to be most likely correct, but then we also have the right as individuals to take those teachings and judge for ourselves. Our priest knows I basically question everything, as scientists tend to do, and yet he welcomed me back into the church after me being gone for over 20 years. Ceiling almost caved in though.

So maybe Athanasius was right, maybe he wasn't, is that sufficient to explain your view?

 

[eik]

Correct me if I'm wrong.....The Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost are separate beings. They work together to achieve the same goal which makes them part of the same organization which is God.

Notice that even though there are multiple beings under this Godship, there is still only One God. One singular organization whose goal is the salvation of their creations.

Not quite right but almost, if you ignore the anthropomorphisms. "God" is not an organization but a spiritual hierachy with the Father at its head, who is in all and through all Eph 4:6. For this reason Jesus and the apostle John denotes the Father as "true God." That doesn't mean that the risen Jesus and the Holy Spirit are not also fully divine. It means that their divinity derives from the Father and their relationship to him.

 

[sojourner]

You think maybe she was a virgin, maybe she was not. In your court of personal and extended opinion, you don't say yea or nay, do I understand correctly?

The story is deemed mythic. I have no reason to believe it is anything other than mythic.

 

[metis]

So maybe Athanasius was right, maybe he wasn't, is that sufficient to explain your view?

"Maybe" is the key word for me in the above, thus there's very little that I discount.

 

[YoursTrue]

"Maybe" is the key word for me in the above, thus there's very little that I discount.

Sorry, but I don't understand what you mean when you say there's very little that you discount. Do you mean that there's very little you do not believe?
I have a feeling you think the explanation of the trinity of three co-equal godpersons could be right, and maybe it isn't.

 

[YoursTrue]

The story is deemed mythic. I have no reason to believe it is anything other than mythic.

And therefore you must also believe that divine healing (that from Jesus or the prophets) was also mythic?

 

[sojourner]

And therefore you must also believe that divine healing (that from Jesus or the prophets) was also mythic?

Possibly. I'm not convinced of the actual historicity of the prophets.

 

[YoursTrue]

@sojourner
So you have a form of worship but you're really not sure about the basis for it. Now let me ask you a question. Do you believe that God, a person or being that is a Creator who thinks, exists?

 

[metis]

Do you mean that there's very little you do not believe?

No-- the opposite.

I have a feeling you think the explanation of the trinity of three co-equal godpersons could be right, and maybe it isn't.

The concept of "essence" is important to begin to understand the Catholic view, which can be defined like this: the totality of something is more than just the sum of its parts. Or to put it another way: Jesus is of the essence of God.

The Trinity is an attempt to clarify that somewhat, but we also call it the "Mystery of the Trinity", implying that it's beyond our comprehension to completely understand this. Personally, I haven't a clue how accurate it may or may not be, nor do I lose any sleep over not knowing.

 

[metis]

May I ask what power your priest has? Is he capable of answering your questions?

In this case, it's not "power" but education.

Here in the States, a priest pretty much has the equivalent of a graduate degree, and it goes well beyond just studying theology. In the Jesuit order, most have at least one ph.d., and some I have known have more than one.