Atruthseeker
Active Member
1+1+1=1? or 1+1+1=3 or 1+1+1= something else?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Trinity
- Thread starter Atruthseeker
- Start date
Zadok
Zadok
If one is to use the full intent of mathematical notation (including set theory) the correct notation would be 1 (is less than or equal to) 1+1+1 (which is less than or equal to 3).
If however, we use the full implications of mathematical theory as a projection of the G-dhead then we must deal with one very important notion form the ancient Hebrew description of G-d. That is the word “ehad” to describe the numerical “oneness” of G-d. If we assume the numerical singularity of “ehad” then the “oneness” of G-d becomes by definition the least common dominator of the whole. This would mean that G-d cannot be divided or differentiated into any “sub” persons or distinctions – such as “Father” “Son” and “Holy Ghost”.
If in contrast, “ehad” is plural unity, as in marriage when a man and a woman become “one flesh” then “ehad” does not assume the number theory definition of the “whole” or “counting” numbers and cannot be use as scriptural proof that G-d is singular. The point here is that according to all possible variant readings of “ehad” the “Biblical” interpretation of “one G-d” is contradicted in the doctrine of the Trinity.
Zadok
If however, we use the full implications of mathematical theory as a projection of the G-dhead then we must deal with one very important notion form the ancient Hebrew description of G-d. That is the word “ehad” to describe the numerical “oneness” of G-d. If we assume the numerical singularity of “ehad” then the “oneness” of G-d becomes by definition the least common dominator of the whole. This would mean that G-d cannot be divided or differentiated into any “sub” persons or distinctions – such as “Father” “Son” and “Holy Ghost”.
If in contrast, “ehad” is plural unity, as in marriage when a man and a woman become “one flesh” then “ehad” does not assume the number theory definition of the “whole” or “counting” numbers and cannot be use as scriptural proof that G-d is singular. The point here is that according to all possible variant readings of “ehad” the “Biblical” interpretation of “one G-d” is contradicted in the doctrine of the Trinity.
Zadok
The Bible contains neither the word nor the idea of a "trinity". Trinities of gods are common in pagan religions, however.
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
There was no subject so hotly debated in the early church than the relationship between God , Jesus, and the Holy spirit. Every side in the debate went through the stage of declaring the others Heretics. All were certain there was only one God.
The Trinity concept was numerically the winner.
However virtually all the other concepts still survive to this day in one form or another.
Most people I have met, Trinitarians or not, are quite unable to explain the Trinity in simple terms.
Muslims are unwilling to even try.
However This does not mean the concept is false, it simply means like all religious concepts, it is mysterious.
The Trinity concept was numerically the winner.
However virtually all the other concepts still survive to this day in one form or another.
Most people I have met, Trinitarians or not, are quite unable to explain the Trinity in simple terms.
Muslims are unwilling to even try.
However This does not mean the concept is false, it simply means like all religious concepts, it is mysterious.
Muffled
Jesus in me
That translates to 1 x 1 x 1 = 1
I have 1 + 1 + 1 = 3.
I have one apple. I put the apple on the counter and I put the apple in a bag and I eat the apple. I have three instances of the same apple. I do not have three apples.
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
What a pathetic response.
John D
Spiritsurfer
Why say things that will come back to haunt you.
You crossed the line between trying (failing) to be funny and committing spiritual suicide. If you don't believe in something because you are not able to understand the basics, refrain from comenting on the subject.
Met another Troll ,methinks.
logician
Well-Known Member
I'm not really worried about spiritual suicide, and as usual, the Xian apoligists have a very thin skin.
Dunemeister
Well-Known Member
You put this under biblical debates, yet I notice a paucity of biblical content....
Just sayin'.
You dont know much about the subject, have made any research?
The Holy Spirit is the is the helper (the paraklite) that Jesus ask the father to send to remain with the Church to teach and help us the Lords commands love God above everything and your brethren as yourself
LittleNipper
Well-Known Member
Height, depth, width equals one item of three dimensions.
Past, present, future equals one timeline.
GOD says that HE is the Alpha and the Omega. He is certainly present...
logician
Well-Known Member
According to Acts, which is a totally bogus book of the NT.
My impression of your reply is the your research was very superficial one and you remain very ignorant of our beliefs (the alternative is that twisting scriptures and that would make a wicked individual) did you check on these ones?\
Jhn 14:16
And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever--
Jhn 14:26
But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.
Jhn 15:26
"But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me.
Jhn 16:7
Nevertheless I tell you the truth. It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you.
And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever--
Jhn 14:26
But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.
Jhn 15:26
"But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me.
Jhn 16:7
Nevertheless I tell you the truth. It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you.
Originally Posted by logician The one idea of the trinitiy that is comical is the holy spirit. What the heck is that?
Does it leave any doubts of Christians knowing exactly what it is?
Walkntune
Well-Known Member
Why would a Christian try and take spiritual matters and break them down because they don't understand in a literal sense.This right here is the same idea in Mark ch. 10
Please explain this in a literal sense.
Mark Ch.10
7For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
8And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
Please explain this in a literal sense.
Mark Ch.10
7For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
8And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
logician
Well-Known Member
Haven't you pretty much conceded my point that the "Holy Spirit" is nothing more than a gopher?
Walkntune
Well-Known Member
I think this is trolling in too deep of water to even push the issue!
I am trying very hard to think that you are ignorant in spiritual matter, are you saying that you have any idea of what you shot your mouth about, that is what I have conceded but as your one liner goes on and on I must concede you are willfully deceiving, where in act is said any thing about the Holy Spirit? You have no idea of what you talking about, dont you? As for personal wisdom, I dont think much of them and I put it to a case of rationality.:foot: