The Trinity

[ApologeticsCatholic]

A SINGLE [SIZE=+1]S[/SIZE]TORY [SIZE=+1]O[/SIZE]F [SIZE=+1]J[/SIZE]ESUS ?

there is only one Jesus and one story...obviously, all stories even till this day are told many times and somtimes slighlty different from the last tiem you may have heard it for one reason, becasue as time goes by stories begin to change slightly, what does this prove?... uh... nothing..

The early church unanimously held that the gospel of Matthew was the first written gospel and was penned by the apostle of the same name

Mark was not an eyewitness to the events of Jesus' life. He was a disciple of Peter and undoubtedly it was Peter who informed Mark of the life of Christ and guided him in writing the Gospel known by his name (Mark heard the story and wrote it down?)

Luke was not an eyewitness of the life of Christ. He was a companion of Paul who also was not an eyewitness of Christ's life. But, both had ample opportunity to meet the disciples who knew Christ and learn the facts not only from them, but from others in the area

The writer of the gospel of John was obviously an eyewitness of the events of Christ's life since he speaks from a perspective of having been there during many of the events of Jesus' ministry and displays a good knowledge of Israeli geography and customs.

4 people wrote down the accounts of jesus christ and all stories ery similiar or nearly identical, becasue the story is told 4 times.... doesnt prove anything....

 

[ApologeticsCatholic]

This could entail the retelling of older biblical stories in new settings-- there you go again... COULD, not fact, another possiblity....

The Passion story itself is a pastiche of verses from the Psalms <---
no its not, the reason the passion is similiar to pslams, becasue it is Jesus fuflliing the prohecy written in psalms and the prophecy of the old testiment... thats part of the christian faith....

It is quite possible that Mark.. hmmm im sencing a pattern , quite possible
obviously you didnt read allt his nonsence and speculation...


one unlikely to belong to any individual, let alone a Jewish preacher of the Kingdome, wheres there facts?

A Conspiracy of Silence .. what conspiracy? O_O

 

[Muffled]

This is almost exactly what Dawn said, Michel. Here's how I answered her:

You are the husband of someone else, someone who is not the same "being" as you are. You are the father of someone else, children who are physically distinct from you. You are not your own father or your own husband. The trinitarian approach to God requires that God be one "Being." If the Father and the Son are a single Being, then God must be His own Father and His own Son. What kind of sense does that make? It is impossible for someone to be either a father or a son unless that person has a relationship to some other being.

I would be truly interested to hear your comments on this.

You are not God.

I believe this is a unitarian approach. A trinitarian approach would mean three beings.

That is quite correct and exactly what Jesus is saying when He says that He and His Father are one.

This makes no sense from a human spirit standpoint since we are only able to inhabit one body at a time but from God's standpoint it makes sense because He is able to inhabit millions of bodies at the same time and still be one person except in the first definition of person that sees each physical person as a separate person. However in this case God only inhabited one body at the time and the Father was not embodied. The Paraclete (Holy Spirit) inhabits believers and therefore you could consider the possibility of a million person God in that sense but He would still be only one person in the second definition ie. having only one pesonality. To be more specific about His having only one personality, the concept is that God's personal nature does not change with each person He inhabits.

 

[fullyveiled muslimah]

What deeply disturbs me is that after all was said and done, not one post described the trinity with anything other than conjecture. Not one post was able to sum up the concept of the trinity in a simple, direct, unconfusing, and logical manner. It scares me that people will readily accept a thing wholeheartedly that they cannot even rationalize good enough to post it on a forum.

 

[YmirGF]

What deeply disturbs me is that after all was said and done, not one post described the trinity with anything other than conjecture. Not one post was able to sum up the concept of the trinity in a simple, direct, unconfusing, and logical manner. It scares me that people will readily accept a thing wholeheartedly that they cannot even rationalize good enough to post it on a forum.

Likewise, but from the otherside of the coin, as a "non-believer" I am puzzled why anyone would have the slightest difficulty understanding this perfectly valid "god concept". It makes as much sense as any other "god concepts". Is it so difficult to comprehend three facets of the same being, three aspects of the same being or three "attributes" of the same rather spectacular being? Sorry, I just do not understand why people are confused by this. I just don't get it, lol.

Can you describe why "the Trinity" is NOT a valid "god concept", Fullyveiled Muslimah?

 

[michel]

This is almost exactly what Dawn said, Michel. Here's how I answered her:

You are the husband of someone else, someone who is not the same "being" as you are. You are the father of someone else, children who are physically distinct from you. You are not your own father or your own husband. The trinitarian approach to God requires that God be one "Being." If the Father and the Son are a single Being, then God must be His own Father and His own Son. What kind of sense does that make? It is impossible for someone to be either a father or a son unless that person has a relationship to some other being.

I would be truly interested to hear your comments on this.

I don't think you understood the point I was making; I (in the family example) am "God"; at all times have to be the father to my children, the husband to my wife, and the 'provider' for the family.

I was alluding to the multi faceted understanding of God (which is the only way I can see it) that he is the Father, the son, and the Holy Ghost all in one. He is our father, he was the Father of Jesus of Nazareth (when he was a human here on earth), Jesus was the son (Christ now sitting at the right hand of God), and he is the Holy Ghost that inhabits every living thing - I use the word thing instead of creature, because I believe the holy Ghost is that essence in us that makes us 'alive'- I believe that any living thing has a soul.

 

[YmirGF]

I don't think you understood the point I was making; I (in the family example) am "God"; at all times have to be the father to my children, the husband to my wife, and the 'provider' for the family.

I was alluding to the multi faceted understanding of God (which is the only way I can see it) that he is the Father, the son, and the Holy Ghost all in one. He is our father, he was the Father of Jesus of Nazareth (when he was a human here on earth), Jesus was the son (Christ now sitting at the right hand of God), and he is the Holy Ghost that inhabits every living thing - I use the word thing instead of creature, because I believe the holy Ghost is that essence in us that makes us 'alive'- I believe that any living thing has a soul.

I agree Michel. The only thing I would stretch this out to is to include inanimate "non-living" forms as well. To my warped view of reality we have NEVER been externalize and simply exist within God, and always will no matter where we find ourselves to be, as everything... everything is an aspect of god.(Here I am not simply thinking in mere physical terms either.)

In larger terms, I believe we are like actors in a play that have been seduced by our own roles. We utterly believe we are the characters we portray and fail to grasp that we are in fact actors or that we are even in a play.

 

[michel]

I agree Michel. The only thing I would stretch this out to is to include inanimate "non-living" forms as well. To my warped view of reality we have NEVER been externalize and simply exist within God, and always will no matter where we find ourselves to be, as everything... everything is an aspect of god.(Here I am not simply thinking in mere physical terms either.)

In larger terms, I believe we are like actors in a play that have been seduced by our own roles. We utterly believe we are the characters we portray and fail to grasp that we are in fact actors or that we are even in a play.

I agree; I actually had one of my more 'stupid' thought the other day, walking down the road...
I was looking at all the people walking don and up the road, some of them grimly focussed on themselves, others open to everything, and the thought "This road could actually be one of the capillaries in God's Body - taken literally to understand the point - and we are all the white and red corpuscles in his veins" - just to get a perspective of how puny and limited our understanding can be. I had a good giggle at it.

 

[fullyveiled muslimah]

Can you describe why "the Trinity" is NOT a valid "god concept", Fullyveiled Muslimah?

I'm not out to debunk or invalidate someone elses belief system. This thread is not about debunking the trinity. I just thought I might point out the fact that remains that not one christian, who holds the idea of trinity as a truth and in the highest esteem, could explain it. The truth should never be incomprehensible. One may reject a truth, but it shouldn't be rejected on the basis that it couldn't be comprehended.

Just saying that God is three personages but one God, would be acceptable only if one never inquired further. Once you get into the why's and how's of the trinity it gets confusing. Then when it gets too hard for those of us who don't understand it, t gets passed off as a "mystery". Why should the salvation of my soul be based on a mystery that I must accept without question?

 

[dawny0826]

This thread is not about debunking the trinity. I just thought I might point out the fact that remains that not one christian, who holds the idea of trinity as a truth and in the highest esteem, could explain it.

Respectfully, myself and others have explained it not once but many times, not only on this thread but many others.

In the end, one either accepts or rejects. But yes, the concept is explained repeatedly.

 

[Katzpur]

I don't think you understood the point I was making; I (in the family example) am "God"; at all times have to be the father to my children, the husband to my wife, and the 'provider' for the family.

I understood your point. It's the same way Dawny explained it. And I definitely don't want to argue with either of you. I just don't see how it's the same thing at all.

I believe that any living thing has a soul.

Yes, you and I do share that belief. I don't think a lot of other people do.

 

[KPereira]

Yes, you and I do share that belief. I don't think a lot of other people do.

I agree with that. Why shouldn't every living thing have a soul?

 

[Katzpur]

I agree with that. Why shouldn't every living thing have a soul?

I don't know, but a lot of people think only human do.

 

[KPereira]

I don't know, but a lot of people think only human do.

Humans have a wider variety of communication methods. We can express ourselves through art, music, literature, etc. For example, a bird may only be able to express itself through chirping. We, as whole, are more developed than other animals. That is probably the reasoning behind people thinking only humans do.

 

[logician]

All life is important, but no life is sacred, and all life dies.

There is no proof whatsoever that any other situation but this is true.

 

[Katzpur]

All life is important, but no life is sacred, and all life dies.

There is no proof whatsoever that any other situation but this is true.

Some people don't require proof of everything, wanderer. Truth doesn't require us to prove it.

 

[logician]

Some people don't require proof of everything, wanderer. Truth doesn't require us to prove it.

An excellent cop-out. Christianity is one of the best rackets going , when the promised goods(eternal life) are not delivered, the customers(believers) are not around to complain.

 

[Katzpur]

An excellent cop-out. Christianity is one of the best rackets going , when the promised goods(eternal life) are not delivered, the customers(believers) are not around to complain.

Obviously, one of us is right and the other wrong. The difference between us is that I am confident enough in my own perspective that I don't have to continually belittle yours. Regardless of whether the promised goods are delivered or not, I will have lived my life in such a way that I can feel good about myself. If you can say the same thing, that's all that matters.

 

[logician]

Obviously, one of us is right and the other wrong. The difference between us is that I am confident enough in my own perspective that I don't have to continually belittle yours. Regardless of whether the promised goods are delivered or not, I will have lived my life in such a way that I can feel good about myself. If you can say the same thing, that's all that matters.

YOu don't seem to realize that your continued insistence on the existence of a god is belittling my beliefs just as much as my insistence it doesn't exists "belittles" yours.

 

[Katzpur]

YOu don't seem to realize that your continued insistence on the existence of a god is belittling my beliefs just as much as my insistence it doesn't exists "belittles" yours.

I haven't insisted on anything. I've only said what I believe and have never tried to convince you or anybody else that they should believe as I do. Look, I'm not one of those people who feels I have to constantly tell atheists that there's a God. You, on the other hand, apparently feel compelled to post your opinion that there is no God, over and over again, on pretty much every thread. This is, after all, a religious forum. You've pretty much got to expect that most people on the forum are going to have a belief in a Higher Being. I'm sorry, but I just don't understand what you get out of doing that. Anyway, enough said. As far as I'm concerned, why can't we just live and let live?