Jehovah or Trinity

[THINK!]

You can't have both!~It's either One or Three...

 

[Viker]

How about three in, from or as one?

 

[THINK!]

How about three in, from or as one?

As in "All for One"? That's still 3!

 

[Viker]

As in "All for One"? That's still 3!

Yes and no. If they are One working in concert, they are One.

 

[THINK!]

Yes and no. If they are One working in concert, they are One.

That's a DESCRIPTIVE 'one'. Not a reference to 3 beings.

 

[Viker]

Some would say you have a mind, body and even soul. These are separate distinct descriptives. They can possibly be analyzed separately. But aren't they actually all three part of the whole? One thing?

 

[THINK!]

Some would say you have a mind, body and even soul. These are separate distinct descriptives. They can possibly be analyzed separately. But aren't they actually all three part of the whole? One thing?

Again that is immaterial. By the way WE are a SOUL, not something separate. We each have a Mind, a Heart, Veins, Cappilaries, Liver,etcf etc

 

[Quintessence]

Nah, you can have both.

The humans who can't are just the ones who are black-and-white thinkers instead of either-or-both-and-other sort of thinkers. Then there are the thinkers like me who have neither, because those theological ideas aren't part of my religion. Huzzah for options!

 

[YoursTrue]

Some would say you have a mind, body and even soul. These are separate distinct descriptives. They can possibly be analyzed separately. But aren't they actually all three part of the whole? One thing?

Can you define what is a mind? Body? and soul as separate distinct entities. I know a body when I see one. I'm even watching a body (someone) on tv. I know there's a difference between a live body and a dead one. But what about soul and mind? Please delineate if you will, ty.

 

[THINK!]

Did God send Themselves?

 

[dybmh]

You can't have both!~It's either One or Three...

It's all about perspective... being able to see both perspectives, then uniting them is a valid and reliable method for approaching the divine.

Did God send Themselves?

Yes, and no. God doesn't go places, but reveals itself at certain times and places. What you're observing as "sending itself" is just a form of revelation.

 

[Brickjectivity]

There was a recent thread in Biblical Debates where this was discussed: ‘Jesus was WITH GOD’ therefore Jesus WAS GOD?

There are a lot of thoughty posts by people in there, representing some work. Worth looking through before re-inventing the wheel in here. You can also quote from one thread to another, provided you aren't challenging someone to join this thread in a callout (see rule against call-outs).

 

[Sand Dancer]

I can't remember when the trinity concept was made, but I am unitarian. Jesus was not a god, and the holy spirit is our conscience.

 

[YoursTrue]

It's all about perspective... being able to see both perspectives, then uniting them is a valid and reliable method for approaching the divine.



Yes, and no. God doesn't go places, but reveals itself at certain times and places. What you're observing as "sending itself" is just a form of revelation.

Either there is a God or there isn't, dymbh. Either the Bible is a message from God for us to see or it isn't. It cannot be both at the same time. At least I don't think so. But it's more involved than that because either we believe God spoke to Abraham or we do not. And of course it goes on.

 

[dybmh]

Either there is a God or there isn't, dymbh. Either the Bible is a message from God for us to see or it isn't. It cannot be both at the same time. At least I don't think so. But it's more involved than that because either we believe God spoke to Abraham or we do not. And of course it goes on.

I didn't say there wasn't a God. Nor did I say anything about the Bible. All I said is that there's different ways to consider God. And unificiation is legit. In Exodus 3, 2 names were given. A public and name and a private name. Something very special is happening there. There's more than one way to consider God, and uniting those ideas produces a wonderous unique and awe inspiring ... unity.

It's taking deuteronomy 6:4 to the next level.

 

[YoursTrue]

I didn't say there wasn't a God. Nor did I say anything about the Bible. All I said is that there's different ways to consider God. And unificiation is legit. In Exodus 3, 2 names were given. A public and name and a private name. Something very special is happening there. There's more than one way to consider God, and uniting those ideas produces a wonderous unique and awe inspiring ... unity.

It's taking deuteronomy 6:4 to the next level.

I know you did not say whether or not there is a God. But that's the reality. His moral requirements are demonstrated in the Bible to be very important. That is also bound up in His requirements for life, the choice also given to Adam and Eve.

 

[YoursTrue]

I didn't say there wasn't a God. Nor did I say anything about the Bible. All I said is that there's different ways to consider God. And unificiation is legit. In Exodus 3, 2 names were given. A public and name and a private name. Something very special is happening there. There's more than one way to consider God, and uniting those ideas produces a wonderous unique and awe inspiring ... unity.

It's taking deuteronomy 6:4 to the next level.

Naturally there are different ways in considering God. That's why, I suppose, there are different religions. Ya think?

 

[dybmh]

Naturally there are different ways in considering God. That's why, I suppose, there are different religions. Ya think?

I'm taking about a process which has value. The process cannot exist without differences. Yes, there will be things which are right and wrong. The process of uniting them, doesn't change that, instead it sets the stage for a process which has a lot of value and benefit.

So, if we're talking about the trinity, I don't know any Christian who splits the trinity. It's a unity. I'm saying that this process of uniting it is valid and can have value eventhough on the surface it sounds/feels wrong from a montheistic perspective. The trinity is an opportunity. It doesn't need to be seen in a negative way. It can be negative, but it doesn't need to be.

 

[YoursTrue]

I'm taking about a process which has value. The process cannot exist without differences. Yes, there will be things which are right and wrong. The process of uniting them, doesn't change that, instead it sets the stage for a process which has a lot of value and benefit.

So, if we're talking about the trinity, I don't know any Christian who splits the trinity. It's a unity. I'm saying that this process of uniting it is valid and can have value eventhough on the surface it sounds/feels wrong from a montheistic perspective. The trinity is an opportunity. It doesn't need to be seen in a negative way. It can be negative, but it doesn't need to be.

OK, there are different religious sects and viewpoints. Keeping it simple as possible for now, Jesus said the Father sent him. Jesus was the sent one. There were two, clearly Jesus did not say he sent himself.

 

[YoursTrue]

I'm taking about a process which has value. The process cannot exist without differences. Yes, there will be things which are right and wrong. The process of uniting them, doesn't change that, instead it sets the stage for a process which has a lot of value and benefit.

So, if we're talking about the trinity, I don't know any Christian who splits the trinity. It's a unity. I'm saying that this process of uniting it is valid and can have value eventhough on the surface it sounds/feels wrong from a montheistic perspective. The trinity is an opportunity. It doesn't need to be seen in a negative way. It can be negative, but it doesn't need to be.

It depends. I keep considering the course of the Jews and the Israelites as recorded in the Bible.