The Holy Trinity and John 17:3

[Windwalker]

Guys - show me where it actually says Jesus is divine!

Were you not saying Luke was misquoting Isaiah, misapplying the passage in his nativity story to say Jesus was divine? Why were you making that argument then against his use of Isaiah then?

I and my Father are one, - is no different then saying - I and the president are one, - meaning same goals, and ideas, message, etc.

So then, if that is how it was understood when Jesus said it, why didn't the Jews then respond to him saying, "So are we! We have the same goals, ideas, and message of God. We are his priests!". That would make sense. They would have thrown their arms around him and said, "Welcome brother, we share the same goals!". But that's not how the passage unfolds when you read it.

Instead of the Jews understanding Jesus saying "I and the Father are one," to mean the same purpose, the took up stones to but him to death for blasphemy! Well, that's pretty darned severe, don't you think? In fact Jesus asked them, "I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?” To which they expressed how THEY understood what Jesus meant, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God." No, the Jews did not understand "I and my father are one" to mean one in purpose when he said it. They understood it to be Jesus making himself out to be God. And doing that, was blasphemy to them which is why they sought to put him to death.

Not good enough? Let's go back to the 8th chapter where a similar story unfolds where they considered him blaspheming and seek to put him to death where we will seem the exact same thing where Jesus told them Abraham saw his day and was glad. They responded with dismay saying, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?” Jesus then said, "Truly, truly I say to you before Abraham was, I am" The response was swift and violent, where they sought to stone him to death for blasphemy. It's very clear when he directly identified himself in a state of being the was before Abraham, and uttered in that context the I AM of the God of Moses to them, that was grounds for being put to death!

Make no mistake, if they thought he just was delusional thinking he was a man who was over a thousand years old, then would not have sought to stone him! They would have laughed and dismissed him as insane. But no, they were enraged at the very clear reference, and understood very clearly what he meant. They understood clearly in both cases, and their responses makes that unmistakable. You say you think the Jews had a clear understanding of these things, then it's clear that they took what Jesus was saying to be him claiming personal identity with God. "You being a man make yourself God!" they screamed.

This all very clear.

We know the virgin story is false - from Isaiah - and added later.
*

So do you believe that later addition to Luke's Gospel was the later author trying to make Jesus divine?

 

[Windwalker]

NO, - the Logos is not Jesus.

Logos does not mean human in any sense of the word.

Perhaps you didn't read what I said where I very clearly say that the Logos is not flesh? I spent a bit of time explaining all that. You might wish to go back and reread what I wrote.

It is a computation of WORDS/Message/Gods Law/etc.

No it's not. Not in the context of John chapter one. I went into this in detail. It is a clear reference to the Logos of Philo of Alexandria that John used as a starting point in a known concept, in both Greek and Hebrew ideas of the day (the memra of Jehovah being the other). John uses this common idea of the Logos as the Agent of manifestation between the invisible, unknowable God and the visible manifest world (I'm repeating all this here so it isn't missed again). He uses this as a common starting point of the understanding of this Logos both the Greeks and Jews were familiar with, then he expands upon it, building and building until the great climax in verse 14, "and this Logos became flesh!".

What you say it means makes no sense in the context at all. I don't know any scholar who agrees that John 1:1 means that. It makes no sense in internal contexts, or external contexts. It doesn't fit. Logos in John 1, is best understood both internally and externally as the Expression of God, the Word, the Manifestor, the Agent of Creation, the Revealer, and so on. In John 1:14 when John declares he was made flesh, the Logos is simply continuing in the nature of Logos as Manifestor in revealing and declaring God in the flesh of Jesus Christ. Jesus, as man revealed God as a continuation of the nature and role of the Eternal Logos, eternally revealing God. The Logos did this in the beginning, and continued this through in person of Jesus.

The Logos is not flesh, but Jesus the human was. Jesus the human, was the human expression of the Logos, revealing God, manifesting God in human flesh. This too is very clear.

It specifically says that Logos became encased in flesh - not that the logos is that flesh/human.

I think you may have some fundamental misconceptions that Logos ceased to be Logos, or would cease to be Logos if it became a man. Am I right? I can see where that would cause confusion. It's like the argument that would say that if Jesus was God, and Jesus died, then was God dead for 3 days. Right? I'm just checking here at this point to see if this is how you would understand it that would make it impossible for Logos to be Jesus, because the Logos is not flesh. Tell me either way so I understand.

Jesus did not claim to be God, or part of any trinity. And as has been shown multiple times - there is no trinity in the Bible.

I've shown pretty clearly that Jews who sought to put him to death, explicitly saying to him that, "You being a man make yourself God", saw him making that claim.

Aside for that though, the "Trinity" is a theological view that is based on what people see in the Bible. They didn't just fabricate it out of nothing for no reason whatsoever. Obviously, they were seeing something there.

PS. I have already included creation in the Logos as it was with God and is a computation - in this case of becoming. However that in no way then becomes Jesus is the Logos - and God.

I make the distinction very clearly that the Logos is God, and Jesus is the Logos made flesh. Before Jesus lived, the Logos IS. While Jesus lived, the Logos IS. When Jesus was dead, the Logos IS. The Logos is eternal. The flesh and blood human Jesus was not. I'm not sure how to make that clearer.
But what I'd enjoy is here you exegete John 1:1-14 with your "computation" model. Explain exactly what Logos is, and then show how it fits each verse all the way to the climax of verse 14. Then I'll do the same with my "Revealer" or "Manifestor" understanding of Logos. I know mine fits like a glove, but I'm curious to hear how you make yours fit.

ALL, according to the text - come from This (creation.) And John is the first to come from the light - not Jesus - so how special is Jesus?

John is the first to come from the Light? That's interesting. What do you mean? John the Baptist was the first to come from the Logos? I don't understand this line of reasoning, or the basis for it. Explain.

 

[Ingledsva]

Were you not saying Luke was misquoting Isaiah, misapplying the passage in his nativity story to say Jesus was divine? Why were you making that argument then against his use of Isaiah then?

Isaiah has the virgin story and proves the later added Jesus virgin story is falsely taken from Isaiah by people whom misunderstood the text. They are still talking about the same war and the same Kings before the child speaks. So obviously the whole store has to do with that time, - not so future prophecy.

So then, if that is how it was understood when Jesus said it, why didn't the Jews then respond to him saying, "So are we! We have the same goals, ideas, and message of God. We are his priests!". That would make sense. They would have thrown their arms around him and said, "Welcome brother, we share the same goals!". But that's not how the passage unfolds when you read it.

Instead of the Jews understanding Jesus saying "I and the Father are one," to mean the same purpose, the took up stones to but him to death for blasphemy! Well, that's pretty darned severe, don't you think? In fact Jesus asked them, "I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?” To which they expressed how THEY understood what Jesus meant, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God." No, the Jews did not understand "I and my father are one" to mean one in purpose when he said it. They understood it to be Jesus making himself out to be God. And doing that, was blasphemy to them which is why they sought to put him to death.

You are mixing verses. Jesus never claimed to be God. The word used also means JUDGE/Priest. He was claiming to be the Messiah- that judges the souls in Sheol, - and would be superior to those judging him. He - at that time - quotes a Tanakh verse - which is about JUDGING.

Not good enough?

NO. These are the same arguments people keep bringing up without looking at the Greek, or the verses in context. The Bible has no trinity, so there would be no reason for Jesus to be calling himself God, - or Divine.

Let's go back to the 8th chapter where a similar story unfolds where they considered him blaspheming and seek to put him to death where we will seem the exact same thing where Jesus told them Abraham saw his day and was glad. They responded with dismay saying, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?” Jesus then said, "Truly, truly I say to you before Abraham was, I am" The response was swift and violent, where they sought to stone him to death for blasphemy. It's very clear when he directly identified himself in a state of being the was before Abraham, and uttered in that context the I AM of the God of Moses to them, that was grounds for being put to death!

Please put in the numbers so we can look them up. I assume you mean John 8:58, - which should be translated something like ---

John 8:58 Said he Iesous, Amen (so be it, or, it is so) Amen, saying to them, for Abraham to be (gonomai) fulfilled, I am (exist.)

In other words a claim to be the Hebrew Messiah, from the Seed of Abraham (King David.)

The Hebrew (moshiah) however, is NOT A GOD - or trinity.

As you can see it does NOT say Jesus is the "I AM," and that Tanakh "I AM" is also mistranslated, - but that is for another debate.

Abraham talked about the coming Hebrew Messiah.

It should read something like –

John 8:56 Abraham, your father, was passionate/zealous to behold the age/era of Me, and experience and hail/rejoice.

John 8:57 Said accordingly the Jews to him, fifty years dead, and did not yet even Abraham behold.

John 8:58 Said he Jesus, verily, verily, I say to you, ere (so that/for) Abraham be fulfilled, I am (I exist.)

Note that “I am – I exist” is NOT a name.

Make no mistake, if they thought he just was delusional thinking he was a man who was over a thousand years old, then would not have sought to stone him! They would have laughed and dismissed him as insane. But no, they were enraged at the very clear reference, and understood very clearly what he meant. They understood clearly in both cases, and their responses makes that unmistakable. You say you think the Jews had a clear understanding of these things, then it's clear that they took what Jesus was saying to be him claiming personal identity with God. "You being a man make yourself God!" they screamed.

This all very clear.

So do you believe that later addition to Luke's Gospel was the later author trying to make Jesus divine?

Read what I wrote above. As usual when translated correctly, we have no Jesus as God, or Divine, - only as the awaited Messiah.

They wanted to stone him because he was claiming to be the awaited Jewish Messiah - the High Priest/Judge - over even them, - sent from God, - through Abraham/David's HUMAN line, - to bring about the Judging of those in Sheol.

*

 

[sojourner]

Guys - show me where it actually says Jesus is divine!

It does not actually say so.

I and my Father are one, - is no different then saying - I and the president are one, - meaning same goals, and ideas, message, etc.

We know the virgin story is false - from Isaiah - and added later.

*

Read. The. Stories. Miraculous births, resurrections, ascensions. All are understood to be acts in which only the Divine can participate. The very fact that Jesus is said (multiple times, mind you) to have a miraculous birth, a resurrection, and an ascension are proof enough that the writers thought of Jesus in divine terms.

 

[Ingledsva]

Perhaps you didn't read what I said where I very clearly say that the Logos is not flesh? I spent a bit of time explaining all that. You might wish to go back and reread what I wrote.

I don't have to as it says BECAME encased in FLESH. It does not anywhere say Jesus is the Logos. The MESSAGE/law was encased in the teacher/Messiah Jesus.

No it's not. Not in the context of John chapter one. I went into this in detail. It is a clear reference to the Logos of Philo of Alexandria that John used as a starting point in a known concept, in both Greek and Hebrew ideas of the day (the memra of Jehovah being the other). John uses this common idea of the Logos as the Agent of manifestation between the invisible, unknowable God and the visible manifest world (I'm repeating all this here so it isn't missed again). He uses this as a common starting point of the understanding of this Logos both the Greeks and Jews were familiar with, then he expands upon it, building and building until the great climax in verse 14, "and this Logos became flesh!".

What you say it means makes no sense in the context at all. I don't know any scholar who agrees that John 1:1 means that. It makes no sense in internal contexts, or external contexts. It doesn't fit. Logos in John 1, is best understood both internally and externally as the Expression of God, the Word, the Manifestor, the Agent of Creation, the Revealer, and so on. In John 1:14 when John declares he was made flesh, the Logos is simply continuing in the nature of Logos as Manifestor in revealing and declaring God in the flesh of Jesus Christ. Jesus, as man revealed God as a continuation of the nature and role of the Eternal Logos, eternally revealing God. The Logos did this in the beginning, and continued this through in person of Jesus.

Again BECAME ENCASED IN FLESH.

All of that is great - except when you try to make Jesus the Logos. He is the Messiah. An awaited HUMAN from the line of David. Calling him God or Divine would be blasphemy.

The Logos is not flesh, but Jesus the human was. Jesus the human, was the human expression of the Logos, revealing God, manifesting God in human flesh. This too is very clear.

I agree with most of that - "except manifesting God in human flesh." He was the Messiah - the Logos/message/law was encased within him - so he could do what he did - teach it.

I think you may have some fundamental misconceptions that Logos ceased to be Logos, or would cease to be Logos if it became a man. Am I right?

No. Logos means a computation of words/ a message/creation. It does not ever mean a being.

I can see where that would cause confusion. It's like the argument that would say that if Jesus was God, and Jesus died, then was God dead for 3 days. Right? I'm just checking here at this point to see if this is how you would understand it that would make it impossible for Logos to be Jesus, because the Logos is not flesh. Tell me either way so I understand.

Actually the reason the story has Jesus going to SHEOL - is because the awaited Jewish Messiah - is the first to rise from Sheol/grave, so he can pass Final Judgment on ALL in Sheol, bringing the end.

Aside for that though, the "Trinity" is a theological view that is based on what people see in the Bible. They didn't just fabricate it out of nothing for no reason whatsoever. Obviously, they were seeing something there.

It isn't in the Bible. It is made up by later people whom misunderstand the text.

I make the distinction very clearly that the Logos is God, and Jesus is the Logos made flesh. Before Jesus lived, the Logos IS. While Jesus lived, the Logos IS. When Jesus was dead, the Logos IS. The Logos is eternal. The flesh and blood human Jesus was not. I'm not sure how to make that clearer.
But what I'd enjoy is here you exegete John 1:1-14 with your "computation" model. Explain exactly what Logos is, and then show how it fits each verse all the way to the climax of verse 14. Then I'll do the same with my "Revealer" or "Manifestor" understanding of Logos. I know mine fits like a glove, but I'm curious to hear how you make yours fit.

And I of course do not believe the Bible says Jesus is anything other then the Messiah.

We have already discussed the pertinent verses. John does not say the logos is Jesus, it says the LOGOS became encased in flesh. Jesus claimed to be the Messiah - with the Message/Law.

John is the first to come from the Light? That's interesting. What do you mean? John the Baptist was the first to come from the Logos? I don't understand this line of reasoning, or the basis for it. Explain.

In the Greek it says we ALL come from the light. It also says John is the first from that light/enlightenment (concerning Jesus.)

According to the Bible Jesus himself tells us he is the awaited MESSIAH. He never calls himself God, or talks of any trinity.

JESUS SPEAKING ---

Joh 4:23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

Joh 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Joh 4:25 The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things.

Joh 4:26 Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

Read. The. Stories. Miraculous births, resurrections, ascensions. All are understood to be acts in which only the Divine can participate. The very fact that Jesus is said (multiple times, mind you) to have a miraculous birth, a resurrection, and an ascension are proof enough that the writers thought of Jesus in divine terms.

Actually they are misunderstood, mistranslated, or ripped off from Tanakh texts having nothing to do with future predictions.

We know the birth story is false - as we have shown it is taken from Isaiah, which is about Isaiah and his son Immanuel.

He has to have a resurrection/ascension from the grave/Sheol to be the Messiah which overcomes and then Judges ALL the souls in Sheol. The walking around dead/zombies story is added on crap.

Resurrection and ascension are part of the same thing.

Later people, - whom were not there, - misunderstood the story of the awaited Jewish Messiah.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

Were you not saying Luke was misquoting Isaiah, misapplying the passage in his nativity story to say Jesus was divine? Why were you making that argument then against his use of Isaiah then?

...?

Thought I should take the time to answer this one again.

Because the virgin birth story is being used by later groups to make Jesus appear divine.

When in reality there is no such real story of Jesus' birth. It is a direct rip-off from the Tanakh Isaiah and his son Immanuel story. This whole Immanuel story takes place during a war at that time, not some future.

Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Mat 1:22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,

Mat 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

They even misunderstood that she was almah/maiden/virgin, - not a virgin miraculously giving birth.

They also obviously forgot to read the rest of the story - as the birth happens back then, and it continues talking about the same war and Kings.

*

 

[David1967]

[QUOTE="Skwim, post: 4459123, member: 23688ht of

John 17:3

And this is life eternal: that they might know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent.​

it's evident that god and Jesus are distinct beings. God is not Jesus and Jesus is not god. And it's worth noting that none of the 50 Bible versions I looked at indicated this god being referred to is god the father, the first person of the trinity. All use the singular, "god," which doesn't square with the popular The Shield of the Trinity that's often used to illustrate the trinitarian relationship. So, as I see it, John 17:3 contradicts the God Is The Son relationship.

Anyone have a good explanation?​

[/QUOTE]
This topic has been debated for 2000 years. Wouldnt it be neat if we solved it here?But to answer your question, no I dont have a good explanation.

 

[Windwalker]

Because the virgin birth story is being used by later groups to make Jesus appear divine.

I'll address your others points later as I have the time, but I want to focus in on this point which I was trying to bring out.

You are in fact saying that the story in Luke is there to teach that Jesus is divine. Thank you. It doesn't matter who, where, when, or how it got into the Bible, it is in fact in the Bible. Therefore the Bible, as it is in the form we have, does, in fact, teach, that Jesus was divine, as you explicitly stated above that it is there "to make Jesus appear divine" . You have just admitted it. It is in fact, there. And from there, using the Bible as it appears, which teaches Jesus is divine, those who formulated the Trinity doctrine were reading the same thing you admit is in fact there.

The debate is over. Your argument was that is is not there. You have just admitted it is there. It is in fact there.

If you now wish to say that the Bible is full of lots of earlier and later ideas about Jesus, redactions and whatnot, well that's a whole other discussion. One that is way, way, way more involved than just looking at what the texts as they are right now, in the form we have say. In the form we have, they teach Jesus was divine. You have just admitted and agreed to this, so that portion of your debate is over. You now have to move on to the debate about which the "actual" "original" authors intended. In which case, the debate is about a different "version" of the Bible and what it teaches. Agreed?

 

[Windwalker]

Actually they are misunderstood, mistranslated, or ripped off from Tanakh texts having nothing to do with future predictions.

We know the birth story is false - as we have shown it is taken from Isaiah, which is about Isaiah and his son Immanuel.

He has to have a resurrection/ascension from the grave/Sheol to be the Messiah which overcomes and then Judges ALL the souls in Sheol. The walking around dead/zombies story is added on crap.

Resurrection and ascension are part of the same thing.

Later people, - whom were not there, - misunderstood the story of the awaited Jewish Messiah.

*

Again, to emphasize my point from your response to Sojourner, all of this is in fact admitting that the teaching that Jesus was divine does in fact appear in the Bible. Sure, the story of the virgin birth as it appears in the Bible may have been a later addition, or the author of Luke just didn't know what in the hell he was talking about! Doesn't matter. It's in the Bible. It's in the Bible the formulators of the Trinity doctrine were reading from and saw on it's pages! They saw it on the pages because it was there. It doesn't matter how it got in there, or whether or not it's a fraud, or just a bad interpretation of Isaiah. It's there. End of story.

 

[Skwim]

John 17:3

And this is life eternal: that they might know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent.​

it's evident that god and Jesus are distinct beings. God is not Jesus and Jesus is not god. And it's worth noting that none of the 50 Bible versions I looked at indicated this god being referred to is god the father, the first person of the trinity. All use the singular, "god," which doesn't square with the popular The Shield of the Trinity that's often used to illustrate the trinitarian relationship. So, as I see it, John 17:3 contradicts the God Is The Son relationship.

Anyone have a good explanation?​

​

This topic has been debated for 2000 years. Wouldnt it be neat if we solved it here?But to answer your question, no I dont have a good explanation.

Glad to see you say "good explanations," because while there have been quite a few explanations, none have been good. Some, down right horrible/amusing in fact.

 

[David1967]

Glad to see you say "good explanations," because while there have been quite a few explanations, none have been good. Some, down right horrible/amusing in fact.

Your right. Some should come with a disclaimer. For entertainment purposes only.

 

[Windwalker]

Glad to see you say "good explanations," because while there have been quite a few explanations, none have been good. Some, down right horrible/amusing in fact.

Interesting why you ignored my response which pretty much cut to the heart of the problem with your whole premise. http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/the-holy-trinity-and-john-17-3.180604/page-10#post-4479542 Maybe you just missed it?

You are asking for something which deals with the Absolute, the Infinite, or the transcendent to fit into "common sense logic". To make it do that, reduces its nature to something along the lines of the laws of physics, at which point it ceases to be a description of the transcendent. In other words, you're making a gross category error, then claiming how stupid and self-contradictory any descriptions that are attempted to talk about it are.

Congratulations, you've just confirmed that to speak of the Infinite or the Absolute introduces unavoidable contradictions. This is why it's said that when you approach the absolute, everything begins to break down into paradox. I like how Kierkegaard described the ultimate paradox, "The ultimate paradox of thought: to want to discover something that thought itself cannot think". When you move beyond thought, you move into mystical understanding which is inherently paradoxical. In other words, the doctrine of the Trinity is not a logical proposition, but a mystical description of the transcendent. It is inherently Panentheistic, which is inherently paradoxical, where God is wholly transcendent and wholly immanent.

Now, all this to me actually lends validity to it. It cannot be understood in dualistic language. So all this thread does is show you think reality needs to fit how you think and reason about it. It makes it not about the Trinity, but you're own inability to move beyond your own modes of thinking about things, limiting understanding reality to the limits of your ability to reason it.

 

[sojourner]

Actually they are misunderstood, mistranslated, or ripped off from Tanakh texts having nothing to do with future predictions.

Doesn't matter. It's still in the bible, and that was the argument -- that Jesus' Divinity couldn't be found in the bible.

He has to have a resurrection/ascension from the grave/Sheol to be the Messiah which overcomes and then Judges ALL the souls in Sheol. The walking around dead/zombies story is added on crap.

And, as I've already stated, in the minds of the Hebrews, any human being so resurrected or ascended is Divine. Heck, even the Hebrews, according to you, would have seen the Messiah as Divine, since he would have to undergo resurrection in order to "rise from Sheol." There is no possible way you can weasel out of this and say that either 1) the Jews didn't view that Messiah as a God-man, or 2) the followers of Jesus didn't see him as Divine in some way from the beginning. No way you can weasel out of those realities. The Trinity? Not as it was fleshed out later. But Jesus' Divine nature is, at least by your own calculations and what we know of the literature surrounding him, undisputed biblically.

 

[sojourner]

Again, to emphasize my point from your response to Sojourner, all of this is in fact admitting that the teaching that Jesus was divine does in fact appear in the Bible. Sure, the story of the virgin birth as it appears in the Bible may have been a later addition, or the author of Luke just didn't know what in the hell he was talking about! Doesn't matter. It's in the Bible. It's in the Bible the formulators of the Trinity doctrine were reading from and saw on it's pages! They saw it on the pages because it was there. It doesn't matter how it got in there, or whether or not it's a fraud, or just a bad interpretation of Isaiah. It's there. End of story.

Fact of the matter is, we know that Jesus was equated with Augustus from the very beginning, because we have Luke's birth narrative, which comes from a source less than 10 years following the crucifixion, which is a direct plagiarism of Augustus' birth narrative. We also have very early bas relief artwork of scenes from Augustus' life, which was "remade" to depict Jesus' life. Augustus was considered Divine, therefore, Jesus was considered Divine. It's a matter of both history and biblical record. Jesus was considered to be Divine.

 

[sojourner]

Interesting why you ignored my response which pretty much cut to the heart of the problem with your whole premise. http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/the-holy-trinity-and-john-17-3.180604/page-10#post-4479542 Maybe you just missed it?

You are asking for something which deals with the Absolute, the Infinite, or the transcendent to fit into "common sense logic". To make it do that, reduces its nature to something along the lines of the laws of physics, at which point it ceases to be a description of the transcendent. In other words, you're making a gross category error, then claiming how stupid and self-contradictory any descriptions that are attempted to talk about it are.

Congratulations, you've just confirmed that to speak of the Infinite or the Absolute introduces unavoidable contradictions. This is why it's said that when you approach the absolute, everything begins to break down into paradox. I like how Kierkegaard described the ultimate paradox, "The ultimate paradox of thought: to want to discover something that thought itself cannot think". When you move beyond thought, you move into mystical understanding which is inherently paradoxical. In other words, the doctrine of the Trinity is not a logical proposition, but a mystical description of the transcendent. It is inherently Panentheistic, which is inherently paradoxical, where God is wholly transcendent and wholly immanent.

Now, all this to me actually lends validity to it. It cannot be understood in dualistic language. So all this thread does is show you think reality needs to fit how you think and reason about it. It makes it not about the Trinity, but you're own inability to move beyond your own modes of thinking about things, limiting understanding reality to the limits of your ability to reason it.

Most -- if not all -- of the arguments I've seen against the Trinity are derived from dualistic thinking. And most who formulate the arguments aren't even aware of it.

 

[Skwim]

Interesting why you ignored my response which pretty much cut to the heart of the problem with your whole premise. http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/the-holy-trinity-and-john-17-3.180604/page-10#post-4479542 Maybe you just missed it?

Okay, the reason.

This idea you have is in error. First you don't vote into existence an idea.

You know what I meant, and your deliberate misconstrual of my meaning, plus your tailspin into ad homs is why I didn't bother to reply any further. I leave your debate to the others.

 

[Windwalker]

Okay, the reason.

You know what I meant, and your deliberate misconstrual of my meaning, plus your tailspin into ad homs is why I didn't bother to reply any further. I leave your debate to the others.

What do you mean deliberate misconstrual? It was a clear and accurate case why your argument fails. No personal attacks were leveled at all. What I'd enjoy is a rational response to my points, rather than avoiding addressing them claiming I'm not worth your time because you think I insulted you. That's a bogus response on your part. "I know what you meant"? Yes, you said they "voted it into existence". Do you want me to assume you mean something other that what you said? And what ad homs? Show me.

Personally, I see this as you not responding because you can't. You said there are only silly stupid responses, yet instead of going after what should be an easy target as you think I must be, you claim I'm not worth your time because I'm a bad person, or something. Nonsense. Your response is obvious and telling.

 

[Skwim]

What do you mean deliberate misconstrual? It was a clear and accurate case why your argument fails. No personal attacks were leveled at all. What I'd enjoy is a rational response to my points, rather than avoiding addressing them claiming I'm not worth your time because you think I insulted you. That's a bogus response on your part. "I know what you meant"? Yes, you said they "voted it into existence". Do you want me to assume you mean something other that what you said? And what ad homs? Show me.

Personally, I see this as you not responding because you can't. You said there are only silly stupid responses, yet instead of going after what should be an easy target as you think I must be, you claim I'm not worth your time because I'm a bad person, or something. Nonsense. Your response is obvious and telling.

........

 

[Ingledsva]

I'll address your others points later as I have the time, but I want to focus in on this point which I was trying to bring out.

You are in fact saying that the story in Luke is there to teach that Jesus is divine. Thank you. It doesn't matter who, where, when, or how it got into the Bible, it is in fact in the Bible. Therefore the Bible, as it is in the form we have, does, in fact, teach, that Jesus was divine, as you explicitly stated above that it is there "to make Jesus appear divine" . You have just admitted it. It is in fact, there. And from there, using the Bible as it appears, which teaches Jesus is divine, those who formulated the Trinity doctrine were reading the same thing you admit is in fact there.

The debate is over. Your argument was that is is not there. You have just admitted it is there. It is in fact there.

If you now wish to say that the Bible is full of lots of earlier and later ideas about Jesus, redactions and whatnot, well that's a whole other discussion. One that is way, way, way more involved than just looking at what the texts as they are right now, in the form we have say. In the form we have, they teach Jesus was divine. You have just admitted and agreed to this, so that portion of your debate is over. You now have to move on to the debate about which the "actual" "original" authors intended. In which case, the debate is about a different "version" of the Bible and what it teaches. Agreed?

NO, it does not teach that Jesus was Divine. - The story was added later to put forth a lie. It is not part of the original texts, and is obviously false. ALL other texts can be countered by translation.

The idea that he was somehow Divine, is NOT there.

Later added lies and falsehoods are. They were not originally there.

One later added obviously false story does not make Jesus Divine, - or the Bible say he is Divine. I have stated this many times,

Every text brought up can be countered in translation.

If someone alters the Constitution by adding you can kill redheads, that does not mean the Constitution actually says you can kill redheads. It means the text was illegally altered later. The Constitution never included kill redheads. The false additions need to be removed.

*

*