Christians..."Trinity"?

[Windwalker]

Yes. :yes:

Yes he can. He actually limits himself according to scripture. There are certain things that even God CAN'T do. And God can no more make 2+2=5 than he could make a triangle be a square at the same time. Those things are not logical.

I disagree. I don't believe that God is paradoxial. I believe that God is overwhelmingly logical, and that humans are overwhelmingly ignorant. Humans create paradoxes when they try to define God in illogical terms (ie: creating the trinity).

A God that can be imagined by the mind is not God, but our mind's imagination of God. A God that can be reasoned by the mind, is no higher than us.

I didn't say that God was a thing. That's a strawman argument.

No, you described God as an object. That is a "thing".

Logic goes to hell when you say God is omnipresent, yet can be talked about as an object. Where does it exist? The only way you can speak of God as an object is to limit God's being to a "thing" or something outside you. Subject/Object Duality makes God not Omnipresent, Omnipotent, or Omniscient. Duality, which is what logic must, and can only use, destroys God. You are inherently faced with contradiction. So dismiss the Trinity all you wish based on it's logical inconsistencies. So are your views.

A God that can be reasoned by the mind, is not God.

That is not logical. Any concept known to man can be described as EITHER complex or simple (relative to any other concept).

God is beyond conception.

M theory is not a thing with moving parts either, but it is still "complex" relative to string theory.

Of course it has moving parts. The strings vibrate! But besides that, I believe I said "and whatnot". I'm not limiting my analogy to moving parts, but complex parts, or any parts at all for that matter. God has no "parts".

Once again, I disagree with you. God can be defined (and is defined) in a nonparadoxial way. God = a supreme being! How is that paradoxial?

Go for it. Let's see how long it holds up to logic.

 

[captainbryce]

A God that can be imagined by the mind is not God, but our mind's imagination of God.

There is a difference between "imagining" something, and knowing it. The fact that I can understand God in logical terms does not make him "imaginary" to me.

A God that can be reasoned by the mind, is no higher than us.

That's very "philosophical", but it's not really saying that much in the grande scheme of things. I don't see any logical basis for this statement.

No, you described God as an object. That is a "thing".

When did I describe God as an object?

Logic goes to hell when you say God is omnipresent, yet can be talked about as an object.

Again, WHEN/WHERE did I do this?

Where does it exist?

Anywhere he wants to exist. That means anytime, anyplace, inside or outside of the universe.

The only way you can speak of God as an object is to limit God's being to a "thing" or something outside you.

Well, since I didn't do that in the first place I don't have to worry.

Subject/Object Duality makes God not Omnipresent, Omnipotent, or Omniscient. Duality, which is what logic must, and can only use, destroys God. You are inherently faced with contradiction. So dismiss the Trinity all you wish based on it's logical inconsistencies. So are your views.

You are using a strawman argument. I never made God an object.

A God that can be reasoned by the mind, is not God.

And I would argue the opposite. Any god that cannot be reasoned by mind is NOT a god. It merely becomes an irrational explanation for something that isn't understood logically.

God is beyond conception.

Again, we'll have to agree to disagree on this point.

Of course it has moving parts. The strings vibrate!

There are no "strings" in string theory. It's a concept, not an object.

But besides that, I believe I said "and whatnot". I'm not limiting my analogy to moving parts, but complex parts, or any parts at all for that matter. God has no "parts".

How do you know what God has. Didn't you just get finished telling how god cannot be defined by the mind. Yet here you are defining what god does and does not have. I sense some hypocrisy here!

Go for it. Let's see how long it holds up to logic.

I just did. I'm waiting for your retort! opcorn:

 

[Windwalker]

Here is what you said originally that I have called out as making God an object, or a "thing":

2) As you rightfully point out (well, for the most part) H2O is a SIMPLE (not easy) chemical compound (not element). But God is not simply, he is infinitely complex, especially if you want to tie in the concept of trinity (which is so complex it cannot be logically explained). So it's a flawed analogy since the two things are so different in terms of complexity.

The entire paragraph is speaking about God as something like H20, which is an object or a thing you are describing, something that exists outside of you. Except that this God object you are describing, is much more complex in nature than a molecule. You are describing God as a "thing". Your only distinction between God and a water molecule, is complexity. Thus, you are describing God as a thing, or an object.

That wipes out most of your last post, but I'll respond to a few of your other points later.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

To be honest, that probably deserves it's own thread. But if you're so inclined, the burden of proof is on you. Show me in the bible where Jesus literally says he is God. 1 John 5:7 (the real translation from the manuscripts, not the King James forgery) does NOT say that.

There is no place in the bible where it "literally" say that Jacob was the grandson of Abraham either, but does that mean that the concept of "grandfather/grandson" isn't there? Obviously not. What Trinitarians say is that the concept of the Trinity is implied throughout the NT and there are hints in the OT as well.

It's illogical because one cannot be fully God and fully human at the same time.

Oh I very much so disagree. Check this out; if God decided to take over my body, and his mind becomes my mind, would God not be a human while still maintaining his Deity? That is not illogical at all. He can become "not me" at any time he wants, but that doesn't change the fact that if such a thing would happen, he would be considered human in the sense that he is operating within the human body and if you are operating within the human body, you are human. That seems logical to me.

If one is fully human, then by definition they are NOT God, and vice-versa.

Wait a minute, so in that case humans don't have a spirit then. You are a Christian, right? So you believe that all humans have a spirit. So how can we be fully human, and also have a spirit that transcends our physical body? Isn't God a spirit? So why can we have a a body and a spiritual "self", but God can't (if he chooses) dwell in a physical body while also having a spiritual self???

Water is not liquid and solid at the same time. It can only be one or the other at any given time!

Water is not liquid, solid, and gas at the same time. And Jesus is not the Father and the Holy Spirit at the same time. Water is a concept that has three forms. And God has a three "forms" in the sense that there are three persons within the Godhead which share the same Deity.

Furthermore, it is also illogical to believe in a trinity when scripture (including Jesus' own words) emphatically rule that out as a possibility.

The only thing Jesus did was continually express his subordination to the Father, and we have scriputures which tell why this is the case.

 

[Windwalker]

There is a difference between "imagining" something, and knowing it. The fact that I can understand God in logical terms does not make him "imaginary" to me.

I did not say imaginary. I said it was imagined. There is a difference in meaning here. I believe God is very real, but what we "think" about God is using imagination. Just like you use imagining, or conceptualizing, to think of another person, a friend, a lover, etc. You create a mental image of them in your mind when you think of them. Thus you are using your imagination.

Imaginary suggests its cut out of whole cloth, something that doesn't exist at all in any form. I don't believe that to be the case regarding God.

That's very "philosophical", but it's not really saying that much in the grande scheme of things. I don't see any logical basis for this statement.

If you can think of it, than it is not higher in understanding than your own. Imagine the most complex or transcendent thought you can. It's still your thought. It's therefore no higher than you at your very best. That's the logic of it.

Anywhere he wants to exist. That means anytime, anyplace, inside or outside of the universe.

Logical contradiction. You have a being who exists everywhere being able to not be some place. If you do this, you've just created a paradox. My very point, thank you very much.

And I would argue the opposite. Any god that cannot be reasoned by mind is NOT a god. It merely becomes an irrational explanation for something that isn't understood logically.

You can certainly think about God and reason about God. But you cannot by reason define what God actually is. That's irrational.

There are no "strings" in string theory. It's a concept, not an object.

You should study what it is then. There are.

How do you know what God has. Didn't you just get finished telling how god cannot be defined by the mind. Yet here you are defining what god does and does not have. I sense some hypocrisy here!

I don't use the eye of mind to contemplate God.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

It's not phantom. And its INDEFINITE when there's no definite.

Care to quote Acts 28:6?

Or do you want to cross out all the a's from your bible?

Or you could take the approach of Wallace, Goodspeed, and Moffatt and use "The word was Divine" (as in "A divine being".)

Well, fortunately, my view regarding Jesus as being the only person capable of dying for the sins of the world is independent of any biblical scripture. It is based on that alone that I can conclude that Jesus is God.

 

[captainbryce]

Here is what you said originally that I have called out as making God an object, or a "thing":

The entire paragraph is speaking about God as something like H20, which is an object or a thing you are describing, something that exists outside of you.

:no:

Before you continue on with this line of reasoning, I'd suggest that you go back and view post #247. You'll quickly notice that I was not the one who made this comparison in the first place, aka[DoW] was. And if you read carefully, you'll notice that in the very response that you are quoting, I specifically noted that "it's a flawed analogy". So....

Except that this God object you are describing, is much more complex in nature than a molecule. You are describing God as a "thing".

I'm NOT describing God as a thing. aka[DoW] was comparing God to a thing, and I explained why it was a flawed analogy. So you are still using a strawman argument here.

Your only distinction between God and a water molecule, is complexity. Thus, you are describing God as a thing, or an object.

False dichotomy! I am only distinguishing between God and a water molecule as far as complexity goes in THIS ONE example. There are MANY distinctions that I can make (that don't necessarily address the specific analogy provided by another poster).

That wipes out most of your last post!

 

[captainbryce]

I did not say imaginary. I said it was imagined.

Oh, I beg your pardon! Clearly, those two words somehow imply two completely different things. :sarcastic

There is a difference in meaning here. I believe God is very real, but what we "think" about God is using imagination. Just like you use imagining, or conceptualizing, to think of another person, a friend, a lover, etc. You create a mental image of them in your mind when you think of them. Thus you are using your imagination.

Imaginary suggests its cut out of whole cloth, something that doesn't exist at all in any form.

"Imagined"/"imaginary"....SEMANTICS!

If you can think of it, than it is not higher in understanding than your own.

Based on what logic exactly?

Imagine the most complex or transcendent thought you can. It's still your thought. It's therefore no higher than you at your very best. That's the logic of it.

The most complex or transcendent thought I can imagine at this moment are "infinity" and "eternity". However, even though I can think up these concepts, I cannot explain them nor fully comprehend them. Therefore, as concepts, they are HIGHER than me, or beyond my comprehension. That doesn't mean they are imaginary or imagined (or whatever term you prefer). They are actual mathematical, theoretical concepts that are beyond our capacity to fully understand. But we DO understand them as a concept, and we use those concepts in math and science. I see God as no different than any other concept that we may not fully understand! But our lack of ability to fully understand it doesn't mean that we are incapable of defining it logically.

Logical contradiction. You have a being who exists everywhere being able to not be some place. If you do this, you've just created a paradox.

There is no paradox. The paradox only exists in your mind because you cannot comprehend it. But I can comprehend it. I didn't say that God existed EVERYWHERE. I said God CAN exist anywhere he chooses. Logically, this also implies that he does not exist in certain places (that he chooses not to exist). God existing "everywhere" is no more paradoxial than infinity "going on forever" is paradoxial. However, God existing as multiple "people" at the same time (who are both different and yet simultaneously the same) IS a logical paradox.

You can certainly think about God and reason about God. But you cannot by reason define what God actually is. That's irrational.

Nonsense! Every level of every human civilization has been effectively doing that since the dawn of mankind. I can pull up the Merrium-Webster definition of "God" for you if you like.

More to the point, I don't have to define God because God already does that himself in the bible. And his definition is NOT the trinity!

You should study what it is then. There are.

I have studied it. There are no strings in string THEORY. There is no gravity in the theory of quantum gravity, and there are no apes in the theory of evolution. The only thing that exists in those theories are ideas, concepts, words, equations, and data, because that's what a theory is....AN IDEA. It is not an object!

I don't use the eye of mind to contemplate God.

No, but you do define him with limitations (as determined by your own mind). You just declared that God has no moving parts! I'm tempted to ask what your evidence of this is, but I think that'd be going beyond the scope of this conversation.

 

[captainbryce]

There is no place in the bible where it "literally" say that Jacob was the grandson of Abraham either, but does that mean that the concept of "grandfather/grandson" isn't there? Obviously not. What Trinitarians say is that the concept of the Trinity is implied throughout the NT and there are hints in the OT as well.

Here's the problem with your logic (and your analogy): The concept of a "grandfather/grandson" MAKES SENSE. It is something that anyone can easily understand (to the point that it requires no explanation). The ONLY logical conclusion upon reading the text is that Jacob was the grandson of Abraham. Through logic, you can arrive at no other conclusion. Trinity on the other is something that by definition DOES NOT MAKE SENSE, and is inherently illogical. Therefore, one should not draw such a conclusion that it exists UNLESS it is clearly defined and directly stated. Inferring an illogical concept to be "true" in the absence of that is NOT LOGICAL.

Oh I very much so disagree.

It doesn't matter if you "disagree" or not, it only matters what makes sense. The facts are the facts. You can no more disagree with logic than you can disagree that 2+2=4. The fact is, God (as defined) is something that is beyond human. If one is "fully human", then they cannot (by definition) also be God. It's a contradiction in terms! It'd be like saying that someone was fully alive and fully dead at the same time.

Check this out; if God decided to take over my body, and his mind becomes my mind, would God not be a human while still maintaining his Deity?

No. He would still be a deity! For one thing, he would simply be a diety who has taken over your body. But the fact that he can do this (at will) and then presumably undo that at will means that as a "person" he is NOT HUMAN! Secondly, it is not implied in the bible that Jesus's mind became God's mind. There are thing that God is capable of that Jesus is not, and there are things that Jesus is capable of that God is not. They are two different minds! :yes:

That is not illogical at all. He can become "not me" at any time he wants,

That's what proves that he is NOT human. Because no human can do that!

but that doesn't change the fact that if such a thing would happen, he would be considered human in the sense that he is operating within the human body

Well first of all you are drawing to many unsupportable assumptions here. All we know from your example is that he would be operation A HUMAN BODY. I can operate an automobile, but that doesn't imply that I have become the automobile (especially if I can get in and out whenever I want).

and if you are operating within the human body, you are human. That seems logical to me.

Nevertheless, it is not (for the aforementioned reasons). If a being can step into and out of a human body/mind whenever he wants, then he is by definition NOT fully human. There's no other way I can express that!

Wait a minute, so in that case humans don't have a spirit then. You are a Christian, right? So you believe that all humans have a spirit. So how can we be fully human, and also have a spirit that transcends our physical body? Isn't God a spirit? So why can we have a a body and a spiritual "self", but God can't (if he chooses) dwell in a physical body while also having a spiritual self???

You and I probably have different definitions of the word spirit. And I sense that you may be one of those people who consider "spirit" and "soul" as synonymous. But biblically speaking, they are actually two different things. I define spirit in the sense that the bible defines it as; "life". Your spirit is that quality which makes you "alive". Anything that is alive has a spirit! Think of it as "electricity" for an electronic device. If your batteries are fully charged, then they work. Once the batteries die, it means they no longer have any electricity, and they are dead. Spirit = electricity!

Water is not liquid, solid, and gas at the same time. And Jesus is not the Father and the Holy Spirit at the same time.

But you're saying that God IS. You are comparing God to water (which doesn't make any sense).

Water is a concept that has three forms. And God has a three "forms" in the sense that there are three persons within the Godhead which share the same Deity.

We disagree on this concept. I find trinity to be illogical, contradictory, and frankly, unbiblical! But we'll probably have to agree to disagree on this point.

The only thing Jesus did was continually express his subordination to the Father, and we have scriputures which tell why this is the case.

Irrelevant. We already know that he is subordinate to the father because his father is GOD, therefore Jesus cannot be because there is only ONE God. It's really that simple, and it doesn't require a "trinity" in order to make that make sense. Trinity is what makes it NOT make sense.

 

[aka[DoW]]

Actually it doesn't. But rather than sit here and break down all of the reasons why your orange example fails as well, it'd be best to just admit to each other that we have very different points of view on this topic, and agree to disagree. I do not believe that trinity can be explained rationally in ANY analogy. If it could, Jesus probably would have done (and much better). Suffice it to say, trinity is not a belief that is relevant to personal salvation in my opinion and it shouldn't define someone as being an adherent to Christianity.

Actually yes it can be explained by an analogy, and very simply I might add. You.. or I, or anyone for that matter is a living breathing analogy of the Trinity. Mind, body, and spirit. These three things we all have which is like a lesser trinity in itself, we were created in His image likeness after all. Now Im sure that you will say "We cant seperate these 3 components without dieing.." or something like that. I would like to point out that we cant create an entire universe eithe.. or even a living reproducing blade of grass for that matter. I'll hoestly admit that the Trinity of God seems impossible or irrational, but accomplishing the impossible is Gods speciality.

 

[captainbryce]

Actually yes it can be explained by an analogy, and very simply I might add.

And yet, neither you nor anyone else evidently has been able to successful do so without succumbing to inconsistencies, circular logic, or backtracking. Again, if trinity was a real thing the Jesus would have defined it (or he would have hinted at it and let the apostles define it). But since that didn't happen, drawing a conclusion that it does exists makes no sense. Its an illogical, nonsensical, unbiblical concept. And I'm just calling it like I see it.

You.. or I, or anyone for that matter is a living breathing analogy of the Trinity. Mind, body, and spirit.

Putting aside the fact that your analogy completely justifies the idea of "trinity" being a man-made concept that has previously applied to many things, and that which existed prior to the establishment of Christianity, if you want to break it down like that and get really ridiculous about it, you could just as easily say that I'm a "anthology of 12" different body systems (skeletal, muscular, cardiovascular, nervous, lymphatic, integumentary, immune, digestive, urinary, endocrine, respiratory, reproductive). They all do completely different things, yet they interact together to keep me alive and functioning. But, at the end of the day, I am still just ONE person, not 12, and not 12 in one. And anyone would normal reasoning would consider it ridiculous to refer to one person as a 12 part anthology, despite the fact that we actually KNOW the physical makeup of the human body and its functions. Yet, despite the fact that we don't know the full nature of God, you insist that he must be a "trinity" (with absolutely zero biblical references to this, and a plethora of biblical evidence to suggest the opposite). I find that puzzling!

These three things we all have which is like a lesser trinity in itself, we were created in His image likeness after all.

You decided to separate us into merely three facets (for the purposes of creating an analogy), but the analogy doesn't hold up because considering us a trinity is completely arbitrary in that respect (as I've just pointed out above).

Now Im sure that you will say "We cant seperate these 3 components without dieing.." or something like that. I would like to point out that we cant create an entire universe eithe..

Well I don't think I even need to go there considering what I've previously said already. But since you went there, I'd like to point out why THIS further invalidates your own analogy. You cannot compare us to God, and if you can't compare us to God then your analogy fails.

I'll hoestly admit that the Trinity of God seems impossible or irrational, but accomplishing the impossible is Gods speciality.

More to the point, it is illogical and scripturally unjustifiable. God may have the ability to accomplish what we'd normally consider impossible, however God is not illogical or capable of behaving irrationally like we are. Therefore, I don't accept trinity on that basis.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Here's the problem with your logic (and your analogy): The concept of a "grandfather/grandson" MAKES SENSE. It is something that anyone can easily understand (to the point that it requires no explanation). The ONLY logical conclusion upon reading the text is that Jacob was the grandson of Abraham.

It makes sense? Well, so does the Trinity. I would like to think that I am a rational person, and I find nothing wrong about the Trinity doctrine. What is irrational about three distinct persons sharing the same nature of Deity??? Me, you, and anyone else that is considered human share the same nature of human, right? So what is so irrational about the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit sharing the same nature of Deity (God)?

It doesn't matter if you "disagree" or not, it only matters what makes sense. The facts are the facts.

Well, it also doesn't matter if you disagree or not. The Trinity makes sense to all those that believe in it. And as I explained above, just as you, I, and another third person can share the same nature as human, why can't the three persons in the Trinity share the same nature as "God". It is the same thing.

You can no more disagree with logic than you can disagree that 2+2=4. The fact is, God (as defined) is something that is beyond human. If one is "fully human", then they cannot (by definition) also be God. It's a contradiction in terms! It'd be like saying that someone was fully alive and fully dead at the same time.

And based on Christian theology we are all something "beyond" human. Each one of us have a spirit that transcends our physical body. Our spirit occupies our physical body and once our physical body dies, our spirit will continue to live on, whether for the better or for the worse.

No. He would still be a deity! For one thing, he would simply be a diety who has taken over your body.

And Jesus was still a deity as well. John 1:1 states that the Word was God, and in verse 14 it states that the Word became flesh. So GOD became flesh. God/Jesus became human. That doesn't mean that he stopped being God...it just simply means that God, a spirit, manifested himself in the form of a human. What is so hard to accept about this?

But the fact that he can do this (at will) and then presumably undo that at will means that as a "person" he is NOT HUMAN!

What it means is that he manifests himself as a human while continuing to be God. If God chooses to dwell in the body of a human for 33 years on this earth, he is still God, regardless of how he manifests himself. If he manifests himself as a dog, guess what, he is still God. If he manifests himself as a ant, guess what, he is still God.

Secondly, it is not implied in the bible that Jesus's mind became God's mind. There are thing that God is capable of that Jesus is not, and there are things that Jesus is capable of that God is not. They are two different minds! :yes:

I said that to make the point regarding the mind..which is who we are, as opposed to the body, which is the physical representation of us.

That's what proves that he is NOT human. Because no human can do that!

Right, he was more than human, he was God in the flesh as scripture tells us.

Well first of all you are drawing to many unsupportable assumptions here. All we know from your example is that he would be operation A HUMAN BODY.

And doesn't our spirit operate a human body?

I can operate an automobile, but that doesn't imply that I have become the automobile (especially if I can get in and out whenever I want).

Of course not...but if I am speaking to you face to face and all of a sudden I turn into a lion and I remain talking to you, who are you talking to, a lion, or a human?

Nevertheless, it is not (for the aforementioned reasons). If a being can step into and out of a human body/mind whenever he wants, then he is by definition NOT fully human. There's no other way I can express that!

And who is making the argument that Jesus was "fully" human? I agree, if Jesus was "fully" human, he would have been born in to sin just like everyone else and he would have committed sin at least at some point in his life. So no, Jesus wasn't "fully" human like you and I. But he was human in the sense that his spirit dwelled in a physical body just like you and I, and he suffered the limitations of being human as well, just like you and I.

You and I probably have different definitions of the word spirit. And I sense that you may be one of those people who consider "spirit" and "soul" as synonymous. But biblically speaking, they are actually two different things. I define spirit in the sense that the bible defines it as; "life". Your spirit is that quality which makes you "alive". Anything that is alive has a spirit! Think of it as "electricity" for an electronic device. If your batteries are fully charged, then they work. Once the batteries die, it means they no longer have any electricity, and they are dead. Spirit = electricity!

Well, I typically define spirit as the immaterial version of oneself. We can call this soul or spirit, doesn't matter to me, as long as the concept is clearly defined.

But you're saying that God IS. You are comparing God to water (which doesn't make any sense).

It is called an analogy, bryce.

We disagree on this concept. I find trinity to be illogical, contradictory, and frankly, unbiblical! But we'll probably have to agree to disagree on this point.

I can dig it.

Irrelevant. We already know that he is subordinate to the father because his father is GOD, therefore Jesus cannot be because there is only ONE God. It's really that simple, and it doesn't require a "trinity" in order to make that make sense. Trinity is what makes it NOT make sense.

Phil 2:5-9. That is the reason why Jesus is subordinate to the Father.

 

[aka[DoW]]

And yet, neither you nor anyone else evidently has been able to successful do so without succumbing to inconsistencies, circular logic, or backtracking. Again, if trinity was a real thing the Jesus would have defined it (or he would have hinted at it and let the apostles define it). But since that didn't happen, drawing a conclusion that it does exists makes no sense. Its an illogical, nonsensical, unbiblical concept. And I'm just calling it like I see it.

Putting aside the fact that your analogy completely justifies the idea of "trinity" being a man-made concept that has previously applied to many things, and that which existed prior to the establishment of Christianity, if you want to break it down like that and get really ridiculous about it, you could just as easily say that I'm a "anthology of 12" different body systems (skeletal, muscular, cardiovascular, nervous, lymphatic, integumentary, immune, digestive, urinary, endocrine, respiratory, reproductive). .

"He makes foolish the wisdom of this world" cant remeber the location of the verse that states this, but its there. Oh BTW... all those body parts, are well.. the body, and none of them are to be found in the bible when concerning Salvation.. the ones I mentioned are however mind= heart, body= flesh, spirit= (self explainatory). My analogy works... its your apologetics for it that doesnt. I find it troublesome that you argue against the concept of the the Trinity so strongly. Not because you dont believe it, its that you dont seem to even care about how others percieve God. Rather, it sems that you wish to just try and disprove this view of Him. Im not trying to convince you of anything here. Im only attempting to show how we see the Trinity, but its almost as if you dont even want to understand it.

 

[captainbryce]

Deleted

 

[captainbryce]

Deleted

 

[captainbryce]

"He makes foolish the wisdom of this world" cant remeber the location of the verse that states this, but its there.

Don't see how this is relevant, nor do I see how it is a rebuttal of my previous post.

Oh BTW... all those body parts, are well.. the body, and none of them are to be found in the bible when concerning Salvation.. the ones I mentioned are however mind= heart, body= flesh, spirit= (self explainatory). My analogy works... its your apologetics for it that doesnt.

I haven't used any apologetics. Do you even know what apologetics means? Because that is what YOU are using to attempt to justify trinity. Mind and heart are two different things! Any rational mind would see trinity as nonsensical. Only the heart of those who try to understand God by incorporating a man-made concept like trinity can rationalize it. Your analogy DOESN'T work (on any level). But as long as YOU believe it works, then that's all that matters. You have only yourself to convince. NOTHING of trinity is "self-explanatory" since the concept itself is inherently illogical. One can not be "God" and also "not God" at the same time (which is required in order to accept Jesus as part of a trinity). God is all knowing, Jesus is not! If Jesus is not all knowing, then he cannot be God. It's literally that simple, and it requires a convoluted and manipulative interpretation of scripture to get around something that basic.

I find it troublesome that you argue against the concept of the the Trinity so strongly. Not because you dont believe it, its that you dont seem to even care about how others percieve God.

I DON'T care about how OTHERS perceive it. Why should I? For that matter, why should YOU care about what I care about? If you've got trinity worked out in your own mind, then why does my opinion trouble you?

Let each person be fully convinced in their own mind [Romans 14:5].

Rather, it sems that you wish to just try and disprove this view of Him.

I don't need to disprove a negative. It is the people who insist that the trinity is true who have the burden of "proving it" if they want me to accept it. The default position is that there is no trinity UNLESS someone can demonstrate it to be true. Even the BEST analogy can only prove that the trinity CAN BE true, not that it IS TRUE. Proving that it's true requires something much stronger than an analogy (assuming one could conjure one that even works). But more basic then this is that it doesn't matter whether someone else believes in trinity or I don't believe it. What matters is whether or not this belief is relevant to salvation at all. I merely contend that it is not.

Im not trying to convince you of anything here. Im only attempting to show how we see the Trinity, but its almost as if you dont even want to understand it.

It isn't so much a matter of me not wanting to understand it, so much as the fact that I don't have to understand it. I understand enough of it (that it is illogical) that there is no need for me to evaluate it further.

A) When things cannot be reconciled with scripture (are contradictory in nature), and don't make sense, then they aren't true.
B) If Jesus was part of a trinity, he would have plainly said so. The fact that neither he, nor the Apostles did means that trinity doesn't come from Christ.

1 Timothy 1:4-6
4 Don’t let them waste their time in endless discussion of myths and spiritual pedigrees. These things only lead to meaningless speculations, which don’t help people live a life of faith in God. 5 The purpose of my instruction is that all believers would be filled with love that comes from a pure heart, a clear conscience, and genuine faith. 6 But some people have missed this whole point. They have turned away from these things and spend their time in meaningless discussions.

2 Timothy 3-4
3 For a time is coming when people will no longer listen to sound and wholesome teaching. They will follow their own desires and will look for teachers who will tell them whatever their itching ears want to hear. 4 They will reject the truth and chase after myths.

Colossians 2:8
Don’t let anyone capture you with empty philosophies and high-sounding nonsense that come from human thinking and from the spiritual powers of this world, rather than from Christ.

I understand how YOU see trinity. I don't believe your view/interpretation is logical, therefore I disagree with your view. But the crux of my argument is that it shouldn't matter whether we agree or disagree on this point. Trinity is irrelevant as it pertains to salvation. The position is only relevant to people who insist that the trinity belief is essential to salvation.

 

[captainbryce]

It makes sense? Well, so does the Trinity. I would like to think that I am a rational person, and I find nothing wrong about the Trinity doctrine. What is irrational about three distinct persons sharing the same nature of Deity?

I would ask what is RATIONAL about it considering that the bible repeatedly states that God is ONE. Not three, and not three in one. It merely states ONE. The only person who is called God in the bible is Yahweh (the father). Therefore it is not rational to accept a doctrine of trinity.

?? Me, you, and anyone else that is considered human share the same nature of human, right? So what is so irrational about the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit sharing the same nature of Deity (God)?

Because there are over 6 BILLION humans. There is only one God and "there are none other like him". [Isaiah 45:5] Having the same "nature" does not mean we are the same entity. You are I are not part of a duality simply because we share a similar nature. We don't have the same knowledge nor do we don't have the same power. We happen to be alike in "biology" only (which is more than you could say for Jesus and Yahweh). If you and I (who supposedly share the same nature) are not part of a duality with each other, and unequal in knowledge base and power, how could you then make an argument that Jesus, who is UNLIKE Yahweh in biology, and who also doesn't share the same power or knowledge is part of a trinity with him? That doesn't make sense!

Well, it also doesn't matter if you disagree or not.

I never claimed that it did. I in fact 'agree' with you on this point.

The Trinity makes sense to all those that believe in it. And as I explained above, just as you, I, and another third person can share the same nature as human, why can't the three persons in the Trinity share the same nature as "God".

A) Because the bible says so!

Isaiah 45:5
I am the Lord, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God.

B) Because having the same nature does not equate to being part of a trinity, duality, or any other numerically conjoined state (for reasons stated above).

And based on Christian theology we are all something "beyond" human. Each one of us have a spirit that transcends our physical body. Our spirit occupies our physical body and once our physical body dies, our spirit will continue to live on, whether for the better or for the worse.

That's YOUR interpretation of Christian theology, not mine. The spirit is nothing more than the animating force (given to us by God) that gives us life.

And Jesus was still a deity as well. John 1:1 states that the Word was God, and in verse 14 it states that the Word became flesh. So GOD became flesh. God/Jesus became human. That doesn't mean that he stopped being God...

It doesn't mean he was ever God in the first place either. Jesus was not literally "a word" because that doesn't make any logical sense. It's an expression! The word means "the message". Jesus was "the word" because he delivered the message of God. Nowhere in scripture does it say "God became flesh"! What it does say is that no man can look upon the face of God and live. Yet many people HAVE seen the face of Jesus, proving once again that he is not God in the flesh.

it just simply means that God, a spirit, manifested himself in the form of a human. What is so hard to accept about this?

Because it doesn't make any logical sense, that's why.

What it means is that he manifests himself as a human while continuing to be God.

That is a contradiction. If he was fully human, then he could no longer be God because a human can die and God cannot. Jesus died, therefore he was not God.

If God chooses to dwell in the body of a human for 33 years on this earth, he is still God,

But he didn't, unless scripture specifically says that he did. By contrast, what it does say is that Jesus prayed to God! If he was God himself, who was he praying to, and why?

I said that to make the point regarding the mind..which is who we are, as opposed to the body, which is the physical representation of us.

I understand that. But hopefully, you understand how my response to that further invalidates the claim that Jesus could be God. If they have two different minds (with different knowledge and different power), then they are not the same entity.

Right, he was more than human, he was God in the flesh as scripture tells us.

But you previously made the point that he was "fully human". Now you're saying that he was "more than human" (ie: NOT HUMAN). This is an example of the circular logic that is required to accept trinity. You just said that God could "become human" (and then back to God again) anytime he wants, in an attempt to show how Jesus could have been God. Yet, IF he could do that, then by definition he was never really human to begin with. He was always God! Also, you haven't established that he ever did this in the first place. Therefore you haven't actually proven anything. Even IF you can somehow rationalize this in your own mind, that doesn't prove that it is true, or consistent with scripture.

Well first of all you are drawing to many unsupportable assumptions here. All we know from your example is that he would be operation A HUMAN BODY.

And doesn't our spirit operate a human body?

Yes. Your point?

Of course not...but if I am speaking to you face to face and all of a sudden I turn into a lion and I remain talking to you, who are you talking to, a lion, or a human?

Neither! I'm talking to a supernatural being that was originally POSING as a human, and is now POSING as a Lion (but obviously not since Lions can't talk).

And who is making the argument that Jesus was "fully" human?

:areyoucra Uh, that would be most trinitarians! Forgive me for lumping you in with the rest of the people who proclaim that belief, but since so many of them say it, I assumed this is what you were saying too.

Was Jesus Fully Human and Why Does It Matter? - Answers in Genesis

I agree, if Jesus was "fully" human, he would have been born in to sin just like everyone else and he would have committed sin at least at some point in his life.

While I don't necessarily agree with your reasoning on the trinity, this is one thing you've said so far that I do agree with. And just to clarify my position, I don't think that Jesus was fully human. I think that he was something more. I simply don't think he was God.

So no, Jesus wasn't "fully" human like you and I. But he was human in the sense that his spirit dwelled in a physical body just like you and I, and he suffered the limitations of being human as well, just like you and I.

Well, he didn't suffer ALL the limitations of being human. For one thing, he had "supernatural powers" (ie: turning water into wine, healing people, resurrecting people, coming back to life, etc). I don't know about you, but I'm human and I can't do ANY of those things. Being born into sin is the biggest "limitation" that every human shares in common EXCEPT Jesus.

Well, I typically define spirit as the immaterial version of oneself. We can call this soul or spirit, doesn't matter to me, as long as the concept is clearly defined.

Soul and Spirit are clearly defined in Christian theology as two different things.

It is called an analogy, bryce.

But your analogies don't work because NOTHING is like God. How can you compare God to something/someone that is nothing like him? We know everything about water (including everything about it's limitations). But we don't know everything about God. So how can you realistically compare the two in an effective analogy?

Phil 2:5-9. That is the reason why Jesus is subordinate to the Father.

But that reason is irrelevant to my point because he WASN'T ever equal to God at any point in his lifetime. And there are MANY biblical reasons that illustrate this.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I would ask what is RATIONAL about it considering that the bible repeatedly states that God is ONE. Not three, and not three in one. It merely states ONE. The only person who is called God in the bible is Yahweh (the father). Therefore it is not rational to accept a doctrine of trinity.

Jesus said that he and the Father are one (John 10:30). If they are two distinct persons, how can they be “one”? What that means is your reasoning just doesn’t work in light of the scriptures.

Because there are over 6 BILLION humans. There is only one God and "there are none other like him". [Isaiah 45:5] Having the same "nature" does not mean we are the same entity. You are I are not part of a duality simply because we share a similar nature.

Huh? We share the same human nature, don’t we? We both know what its like to be a human, right? We are what we are…we are human, and all humans share the same nature of human.

We don't have the same knowledge nor do we don't have the same power.

We don’t have the same knowledge or power, but we are similar in the sense that both of our knowledge and power are finite.

We happen to be alike in "biology" only (which is more than you could say for Jesus and Yahweh). If you and I (who supposedly share the same nature) are not part of a duality with each other, and unequal in knowledge base and power, how could you then make an argument that Jesus, who is UNLIKE Yahweh in biology, and who also doesn't share the same power or knowledge is part of a trinity with him? That doesn't make sense!

I can make the argument because that is what scripture indicates. I’ve already gave you the Phil 2:5-9 scripture which states the fact that Jesus was God put set aside his “Godship” to come on earth as a human being to die for our sins. It is right there in the scripture, and you’ve failed to address it thus far. Not only that, but Jesus DOES have the same power and knowledge as the Father, as scripture also indicates. It isn’t as if Trinitarians are believing without warrant, we have scriptural evidence for our belief, and unless you can offer an objection to the scriptural evidence, then you have no argument.

A) Because the bible says so!

Isaiah 45:5
I am the Lord, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God.

Ok and if you read in that very same chapter in verse 18 it states “For this is what the LORD says; he who created the heavens, he is God.”

So whoever created the heavens is God, basically, right?

Now after establishing the fact that Jesus is God in John 1:1, in John 1:3, John states “through him (Jesus) all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made”. So the heavens that were created in Isaiah 45:18 were part of the “all things” that were created in John 1:3. So based on that, Jesus is God because he created all things including the heavens.


There are dozens of parallel scriptures like this in the bible. Not only that, but based on your logic…

Hosea 13:4 “But I have been the Lord your God ever since you came out of Egypt. You shall acknowledge no God but me, no Savior except me.”

John 4:42 “They said to the woman, “We no longer believe just because of what you said; now we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man really is the Savior of the world”.

But wait a minute, God told them they are to have no Savior except him. Hmmm, so God has contradicted himself twice, or your understanding is lacking as you are not taking in to account that they are all the same God and are all in unity, so that when one speaks of himself, he is speaking on account all three, which is what uniformity means.

B) Because having the same nature does not equate to being part of a trinity, duality, or any other numerically conjoined state (for reasons stated above).

That's YOUR interpretation of Christian theology, not mine. The spirit is nothing more than the animating force (given to us by God) that gives us life.

So when we die and go to heaven, what will we exist as? A physical body, a spirit, or a soul?

It doesn't mean he was ever God in the first place either. Jesus was not literally "a word" because that doesn't make any logical sense. It's an expression! The word means "the message". Jesus was "the word" because he delivered the message of God. Nowhere in scripture does it say "God became flesh"! What it does say is that no man can look upon the face of God and live. Yet many people HAVE seen the face of Jesus, proving once again that he is not God in the flesh.

First off, you are not taken in to account the fact that in John 1:1 it states “…the Word WAS GOD”. If the “Word” is God, and the “Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us”, that implies that Jesus is the Word, and that Jesus is God. And as far as people seeing Jesus, look, if God manifested himself to you in the form of a lion, guess what, can you say that you’ve seen God? Yeah, in a way you can. What that scripture means is no one has seen God in his fullness, but all we’ve seen is different manifestations of God…whether it is through a burning bush, a light, a human being, an angel, whatever.

Because it doesn't make any logical sense, that's why.

It does to me.

That is a contradiction. If he was fully human, then he could no longer be God because a human can die and God cannot. Jesus died, therefore he was not God.

Lol. Death is just when your spirit leaves your body, that is all. When your spirit leaves your body, your body becomes inactive. Jesus’ spirit left his body, so his body died. Second, you said that a human can die, but that isn’t the case. If God wanted humans to live forever, guess what, humans wouldn’t die. So to say that Jesus wasn’t fully human because humans can die is not a good objection considering the fact that it is up to God whether or not humans live or die.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

But he didn't, unless scripture specifically says that he did. By contrast, what it does say is that Jesus prayed to God! If he was God himself, who was he praying to, and why?

The fact that you are asking this question shows that you don’t understand the Trinity Doctrine. As I mentioned for the third time, Phil 2:5-9 shows subordination from Jesus to the Father and why.

I understand that. But hopefully, you understand how my response to that further invalidates the claim that Jesus could be God. If they have two different minds (with different knowledge and different power), then they are not the same entity.

But they don’t, and that is my point.

But you previously made the point that he was "fully human". Now you're saying that he was "more than human" (ie: NOT HUMAN). This is an example of the circular logic that is required to accept trinity. You just said that God could "become human" (and then back to God again) anytime he wants, in an attempt to show how Jesus could have been God. Yet, IF he could do that, then by definition he was never really human to begin with. He was always God! Also, you haven't established that he ever did this in the first place. Therefore you haven't actually proven anything. Even IF you can somehow rationalize this in your own mind, that doesn't prove that it is true, or consistent with scripture.

Everything you are saying for the past 3 or so quotes goes back to Phil 2:5-9. How about reading those verses and then come talk to me lol. But even with that being said, I have couple questions for you.

1. Do you believe that it is within God’s power to have his actual spirit dwell in a human body? Yes or no?

2. If yes, if God were to do so, at the moment that God’s spirit begins to dwell in a human body, is it safe to say that God is a human, at least in some way. Whether you want to call it fully human or half human, doesn’t matter. Or better yet, in the FORM of a human.

Yes. Your point?

It is the same thing. Our body is the physical representation of our self, and our spirit transcends our body. That is the point.

Neither! I'm talking to a supernatural being that was originally POSING as a human, and is now POSING as a Lion (but obviously not since Lions can't talk).

Well, you can call it posing if you want to. My point is, it can be done, and it was done, and there is no logical contradiction based on the concept.

Uh, that would be most trinitarians! Forgive me for lumping you in with the rest of the people who proclaim that belief, but since so many of them say it, I assumed this is what you were saying too.

I happen to agree with you on this one. I don’t believe Jesus was fully human in the same sense that you and I are. If that were the case, then he would have been born into sin just like you and I, and he would of ultimately sinned, which is the exact OPPOSITE of what he actually did.

While I don't necessarily agree with your reasoning on the trinity, this is one thing you've said so far that I do agree with. And just to clarify my position, I don't think that Jesus was fully human. I think that he was something more. I simply don't think he was God.

Well, what was he, just another angel? Who else but God can live 33 years on this earth without committing one single sin? Only God can do such a thing. Who else can be morally perfect but God alone?

Well, he didn't suffer ALL the limitations of being human. For one thing, he had "supernatural powers" (ie: turning water into wine, healing people, resurrecting people, coming back to life, etc). I don't know about you, but I'm human and I can't do ANY of those things. Being born into sin is the biggest "limitation" that every human shares in common EXCEPT Jesus.

Um, he was also God. Last I checked the miracle of healing and exorcisms are easy tasks for an omnipotent being. There are times throughout scripture where Jesus exhibited his humanity, and there were times were he exhibited his Deity. No problems there.

Soul and Spirit are clearly defined in Christian theology as two different things.

Ok, and one of those two different things will have its dwelling place with God after the resurrection, and the point is we will continue to exist after death in some immaterial form.

But your analogies don't work because NOTHING is like God. How can you compare God to something/someone that is nothing like him? We know everything about water (including everything about it's limitations). But we don't know everything about God. So how can you realistically compare the two in an effective analogy?

But that reason is irrelevant to my point because he WASN'T ever equal to God at any point in his lifetime. And there are MANY biblical reasons that illustrate this.

Yet Jesus made himself equal to God (John 5:18)

 

[captainbryce]

Jesus said that he and the Father are one (John 10:30). If they are two distinct persons, how can they be “one”? What that means is your reasoning just doesn’t work in light of the scriptures.

You are mistaken because that scripture doesn't make your case for you.

Jesus ALSO said that as Christians you and I are one, in the same manner that he is one with the father. Does that mean we are ALL God, or that you and I are literally the same entity? Of course not! Why? Because it's not literal, it's symbolic.

John 17:11
11 I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name, the name you gave me, so that they may be one as we are one.

John 17:20-22
20 “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one

I find it curious (ironic/hypocritical) that trinitarians always point to the literal interpretation of John 10:30 as an example of the "oneness" of Jesus and God, yet clearly you guys don't treat John 17:11-22 with the same level of literalness. What gives?

If John 17:11-22 isn't being literal when suggesting that WE are one, but only symbolic, then neither is John 10:30. You can't have it both ways!

Huh? We share the same human nature, don’t we? We both know what its like to be a human, right? We are what we are…we are human, and all humans share the same nature of human.

Yes, but we are not EQUAL. We may have equal value as human beings, but we are not equal in knowledge, power, authority, social status, economic status, personality, experiences, life perspective, etc. We are very different entities! Saying that we share the same nature does not imply that we exist in a duality with each other. Jesus is the Son of God, therefore he shares the same nature with God. But he is not God himself anymore than you are me.

We don’t have the same knowledge or power, but we are similar in the sense that both of our knowledge and power are finite.

But Jesus is NOT similar to God in this respect. The bible makes it clear that God knows more than Jesus, and has more power than Jesus. Jesus acts according to God's will, not his own!

John 5:30
I can do nothing on my own. I judge as God tells me. Therefore, my judgment is just, because I carry out the will of the one who sent me, not my own will.

I can make the argument because that is what scripture indicates. I’ve already gave you the Phil 2:5-9 scripture which states the fact that Jesus was God...

Except that that's NOT what it says. It says he and God share the same nature. That's where you went from what it actually says to your interpretation of what it says. But I don't interpret that to be saying Jesus was God anymore than I interpret the two of us sharing the same nature as meaning that you and I are the same being. And neither do you, which makes your reasoning a bit inconsistent.

put set aside his “Godship”

Really? Which translation of the bible says that he set aside his "Godship"? Because that's not what my bible says. It says he "humbled himself" taking the nature of a servant.

It is right there in the scripture, and you’ve failed to address it thus far.

I've address ALL of that above. Your interpretation of scripture, and what scripture actually says are two different things. I don't need to address your interpretation.

Not only that, but Jesus DOES have the same power and knowledge as the Father, as scripture also indicates.

Really? Well, let's just see about that!

Luke 2:52
And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man.

Mark 13:32
But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

Matthew 27:45-46
45 From noon until three in the afternoon darkness came over all the land. 46 About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eli, Eli,[a] lema sabachthani?” (which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”).

If Jesus "grew in wisdom", then he didn't know EVERYTHING (otherwise what wisdom is there to gain?). If the Father knows things that the Son does not, then obviously they do not share the same knowledge. If he has his own God, and he is asking WHY he has forsaken him, then he doesn't know everything. That's three different scriptures that prove the limits of Jesus' knowledge compared to God (who knows all things) [Psalm 147:5].

It isn’t as if Trinitarians are believing without warrant, we have scriptural evidence for our belief, and unless you can offer an objection to the scriptural evidence, then you have no argument.

But I can, and have. See above! :yes:

Ok and if you read in that very same chapter in verse 18 it states “For this is what the LORD says; he who created the heavens, he is God.”

So whoever created the heavens is God, basically, right?

Now after establishing the fact that Jesus is God in John 1:1,

This is once again an example of circular logic. In your attempt to "prove" that Jesus is God, you are trying to conjure evidence that requires one to already believe that in the first place! John 1:1 does NOT say that Jesus is God (and I've already been over why it doesn't say that). You have yet to address this. So your establishing "evidence" has already been rejected.

in John 1:3, John states “through him (Jesus) all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made”.

That's correct. However, that doesn't not translate into him "making" everything. The act of "making" is a verb! I can make a cake using an oven. That does not mean that the oven made the cake! It is simply the tool/method by which the baker uses to make the cake. Jesus was the "method" that God used to create all things. Jesus himself is a creation of God according to scripture.

Colossians 1:15
The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.

So the heavens that were created in Isaiah 45:18 were part of the “all things” that were created in John 1:3. So based on that, Jesus is God because he created all things including the heavens.

:no: Non-Sequitur

There are dozens of parallel scriptures like this in the bible. Not only that, but based on your logic…

Hosea 13:4 “But I have been the Lord your God ever since you came out of Egypt. You shall acknowledge no God but me, no Savior except me.”


John 4:42 “They said to the woman, “We no longer believe just because of what you said; now we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man really is the Savior of the world”.

But wait a minute, God told them they are to have no Savior except him. Hmmm, so God has contradicted himself twice, or your understanding is lacking as you are not taking in to account that they are all the same God and are all in unity, so that when one speaks of himself, he is speaking on account all three, which is what uniformity means.

It's not that my understanding is "lacking". I am NOT taking that into account because A) it's not true, and B) it's not relevant. Was Jesus around when God spoke to Israel in Hosea 13? NO. So there is not contradiction. God was the only "savior" that anyone knew because the messiah had not come yet.