The Trinity

[logician]

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, don’t you? As for personal wisdom, I don’t think much of them and I put it to a case of rationality.:foot:

I was a Xian for a number of years, and had a priest that was a good friend, so yes, I know what I'm talking about. The trinity is a very obvious made-up concoction that is illogical and unsubstantiated.

 

[emiliano]

I was a Xian for a number of years, and had a priest that was a good friend, so yes, I know what I'm talking about. The trinity is a very obvious made-up concoction that is illogical and unsubstantiated.

I have great doubts that you are truthful on this, the fathers of the church are the most advanced logician ever known, and if your friend priest was a Catholic priest he would have done a better job of explaining it to you, I am referring to Augustine, the father of western philosophy, Aquinas and the likes, did he tell where this revelation came from? Did he tell you what you need to understand and how you get it? I know that you don’t understand because you have not receive the gift yet (is not your time) you transgress your former faith because of ignorance, I am sure that there is still people praying intersession prayers for you and God may have mercy and assist you. May I corect you "You though that you were a Xian at one stage?" This would be closer to the truth!

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I was a Xian for a number of years, and had a priest that was a good friend, so yes, I know what I'm talking about. The trinity is a very obvious made-up concoction that is illogical and unsubstantiated.

It doesn't have to be sustained if it is from God.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

It doesn't have to be sustained if it is from God.

But doesn't it at least have to be logical?

They are three, but that three is actually one, but still three at the same time, but also still one, which is actually three, but still one at the same time...(ad infinitum)

 

[emiliano]

But doesn't it at least have to be logical?

They are three, but that three is actually one, but still three at the same time, but also still one, which is actually three, but still one at the same time...(ad infinitum)

How can that be logical to one does not poses the ability to ascent to spiritual knowledge?
All throughout the Bible our sacred book and revelation of God one can be more than one and be one, as in marriage for example two person becoming one flesh, from the beginning.

Gen 1:1
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.​

And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
Then God said (the word that is Jesus the son)

Jhn 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Jhn 1:14
And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth​

All of this makes logical sense to those that have the gift of faith, the unbeliever does not have it, they can not understand, now if your arguments are sooooo logical, how is your “there is no God” campaign going? God knows His people and nobody can lead away from Him.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

The unity of marriage I get. I have no problem with the whole "one flesh" thing. However, the trinity's idea of unity runs deeper than that. For example, no one would ever claim that the husband and wife are the same individual or that the husband can become the wife and vice-versa.

The doctrine of the trinity tells us that the father is god, the son is god, and the spirit is god, yet there is only one god. Perhaps to someone with 'spiritual knowledge' this makes sense. However, to those of us who rely on rationality and common sense, it's a contradiction.

Besides, if the doctrine of the trinity is so clear, the why did the early church fathers feel the need to add the one verse to the Bible that describes it better than any other (1 John 5:7)

Maybe they were worried that 'spiritual knowledge' just wasn't enough, eh?

 

[emiliano]

The unity of marriage I get. I have no problem with the whole "one flesh" thing. However, the trinity's idea of unity runs deeper than that. For example, no one would ever claim that the husband and wife are the same individual or that the husband can become the wife and vice-versa.

The doctrine of the trinity tells us that the father is god, the son is god, and the spirit is god, yet there is only one god. Perhaps to someone with 'spiritual knowledge' this makes sense. However, to those of us who rely on rationality and common sense, it's a contradiction.

Besides, if the doctrine of the trinity is so clear, the why did the early church fathers feel the need to add the one verse to the Bible that describes it better than any other (1 John 5:7)

Maybe they were worried that 'spiritual knowledge' just wasn't enough, eh?

Now, doesn’t it mean that most Christians are Trinitarians and that they amount to millions of rational being, most of then have had a personal revelation, on the other hand we have a tiny minority the Godless that can not grasp the concept, this tell me that they lack something (rationality? Faith? both?) I am convinced that is Faith and that this is a gift of God sovereignty to those that God have Mercy upon at God’s time.

 

[Metempsychosis]

1+1+1=1? or 1+1+1=3 or 1+1+1= something else?

1+1+1=1 ;By Binary logic.

 

[logician]

1+1+1=1 ;By Binary logic.

Actualy, it = 11.

 

[Dunemeister]

But doesn't it at least have to be logical?

They are three, but that three is actually one, but still three at the same time, but also still one, which is actually three, but still one at the same time...(ad infinitum)

It's logical. God is one in a different sense than the sense in which he is three. Saying God is "three in one" is simply a slogan trinitarians use, and as all slogans are, it's deeply misleading about the belief and issues it expresses.

 

[Muffled]

1+1+1=1 ;By Binary logic.

That is incorrect in binary the result 11.

 

[Muffled]

It's logical. God is one in a different sense than the sense in which he is three. Saying God is "three in one" is simply a slogan trinitarians use, and as all slogans are, it's deeply misleading about the belief and issues it expresses.

It is more than a slogan; it is also a false perception. It suggests that God is divided into parts. That is not the case; despite His dispersion He is not divisiable. The key to this is that God is one intelligence. There are not three different thought patterns to God but only one. Some people try to divide God up on the basis of His manifestations but those are just an outward expression not essential beings in and of themselves.

For instance, I think a thought. The thought has no intelligence of its own; it is simply a manifestation of my intelligence.

It is amazing how some people manage to co-opt a word to refer to their own belief. I don't believe that God is in three persons but I do believe in the Trinity. I think that makes me a trinitarian but those who believe in the Doctrine of the Trinity don't think so.

 

[Dunemeister]

It is more than a slogan; it is also a false perception. It suggests that God is divided into parts. That is not the case;
despite His dispersion He is not divisiable.

Trinitarians agree with this statement. The fact that you propose it as an objection to trinitarianism shows you don't really understand it.

The key to this is that God is one intelligence. There are not three different thought patterns to God but only one. Some people try to divide God up on the basis of His manifestations but those are just an outward expression not essential beings in and of themselves.

For instance, I think a thought. The thought has no intelligence of its own; it is simply a manifestation of my intelligence.

"Dividing up God" based on "manifestations" is called "modalism." It represents one of the earliest attempts at a trinitarian formulation but was rejected fairly early on because although it preserves the unity of God it fails to account adequately for the very real distinctions between the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. Modalism is not really "dividing God up" by the way. When modalists speak of "manifestations", what they usually mean is that God manifests himself in three primary modes. There's still just one God on this view, but that God's operations manifest themselves in history and the life of the church in different ways.

It is amazing how some people manage to co-opt a word to refer to their own belief. I don't believe that God is in three persons but I do believe in the Trinity. I think that makes me a trinitarian but those who believe in the Doctrine of the Trinity don't think so.

Actually, the church invented the concept of "person" in order to talk of God in trinitarian terms. It has since developed into a common-use word. As we use the word, we commonly think of "being" and "person" as coextensive. For instance, when I speak of a "human being" I speak of one and only one "human person." With God it's different. He is one being who exists (or subsists or whatever copular verb fits here) as three persons. A divine being is one concept; a divine person is another. If you don't like the use of the word "person" in this connection, you can substitute a filler such as "widget" if you like, but it doesn't change the concept.

 

[Metempsychosis]

That is incorrect in binary the result 11.

In Binary logic there are only two results :0 and 1.

 

[Muffled]

[/color]

Trinitarians agree with this statement. The fact that you propose it as an objection to trinitarianism shows you don't really understand it.



"Dividing up God" based on "manifestations" is called "modalism." It represents one of the earliest attempts at a trinitarian formulation but was rejected fairly early on because although it preserves the unity of God it fails to account adequately for the very real distinctions between the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. Modalism is not really "dividing God up" by the way. When modalists speak of "manifestations", what they usually mean is that God manifests himself in three primary modes. There's still just one God on this view, but that God's operations manifest themselves in history and the life of the church in different ways.



Actually, the church invented the concept of "person" in order to talk of God in trinitarian terms. It has since developed into a common-use word. As we use the word, we commonly think of "being" and "person" as coextensive. For instance, when I speak of a "human being" I speak of one and only one "human person." With God it's different. He is one being who exists (or subsists or whatever copular verb fits here) as three persons. A divine being is one concept; a divine person is another. If you don't like the use of the word "person" in this connection, you can substitute a filler such as "widget" if you like, but it doesn't change the concept.

I would be grateful to have it explained to me. I am sure I have not delved to the bottom of this subject yet.

On the contrary, manifestations of God do not eliminiate His unity. Do you become divided because you were seen at different places at different times?

I agree that metaphorical depictions such as those used by Sabellius and those who talk about water, ice and steam, fail in their analogies to truly represent God in His manifestations. However the distinctions that are talked about are not essential to the person of God. The Athanasian creed does touch on this by saying that god is one essence.

Yes. I have seen this definition in the dictionary. The problem is that it has no real meaning and is easily confused by people with the other meanings of person, all of which don't describe the Trinity. If the term "figures of persons" had been used it would qualify since the reader would understand that there were not really three persons.

Yes. In the Trinity, God plays co-terminous roles as thoguh he were three persons, however this is not an essence but a temporal arrangement. Some day Jesus will no longer exist because He will no longer be needed and the same is true of the Paraclete. These are temporal manifestations.

I don't agree. A figure of a person has an entirely different meaning from any of the definitions of person. However it does not completely satisfy either becasue Jesus is not merely a figure of a person but a person fulfilling the first definition ie a human being like us. Neither is the Father any less real because of His lack of corporeality. The Paraclete is the most figurative of the three because He does not have any real identity apart from the Father other than a figurative one. Of course Jesus identifies Himself as the Father as well but the distinction of the body does give Him the appearance of a different identity.

 

[Walkntune]

I see it like this as a trinitarian. God is body, mind, and soul where God is the mind, Jesus the body and the soul the Holy Spirit. Humans are body, mind and soul as well and it's interesting we are created in his image.

When some talks to you are they talking to your body? your Mind? What is the real you?

 

[Dunemeister]

I would be grateful to have it explained to me. I am sure I have not delved to the bottom of this subject yet.

You never will. But a good start is William Rusch's The Trinitarian Controversy. In it, he outlines the theological and social context of the debate surrounding the nature of God, and provides what primary sources exist concerning the debates and positions. So not only can you read what theologians have had to say later but what the original disputants had to say. Great read.

On the contrary, manifestations of God do not eliminiate His unity. Do you become divided because you were seen at different places at different times?

You seem to be contradicting me here, which is strange because my original statement affimed that modalism preserves the unity of God. But it does so at the expense of the real distinctions revealed, such as those between the Father and the Son and the Father and the Spirit.

Yes. I have seen this definition in the dictionary. The problem is that it has no real meaning and is easily confused by people with the other meanings of person, all of which don't describe the Trinity. If the term "figures of persons" had been used it would qualify since the reader would understand that there were not really three persons.

Of course it has meaning, just not the standard one we typically apply to the word "person." Using "figures of persons" to speak metaphorically is misleading because the idea is that there ARE really three persons. The Father is really distinct from the Son who are both distinct from the Spirit. Yet they share one and the same "name". It's not as if God "manifests" in one way at one time and another in another. If that were the case, we couldn't make any sense of the fact that the Son prays to the Father and that the Father sends the Son.

YeI don't agree. A figure of a person has an entirely different meaning from any of the definitions of person. However it does not completely satisfy either becasue Jesus is not merely a figure of a person but a person fulfilling the first definition ie a human being like us. Neither is the Father any less real because of His lack of corporeality. The Paraclete is the most figurative of the three because He does not have any real identity apart from the Father other than a figurative one. Of course Jesus identifies Himself as the Father as well but the distinction of the body does give Him the appearance of a different identity.

Well, what's revealed about the Spirit does indicate personality. We also know that he is distinct from the Father in that the Father "sends" the Spirit and the Spirit "testifies about/to" the Son. Scripture also indicates the Spirit is divine in the same sense as the Father (the Spirit shares the "name" of the Father, among other images). What makes it trickier with the Spirit is the comparatively little ink spilled about Him in the pages of the New Testament. But there's enough to make the case that we have a trinity not a diunity.

 

[Dunemeister]

I see it like this as a trinitarian. God is body, mind, and soul where God is the mind, Jesus the body and the soul the Holy Spirit. Humans are body, mind and soul as well and it's interesting we are created in his image.

When some talks to you are they talking to your body? your Mind? What is the real you?

These analogies always break down because the mind, by itself, is not a human apart from the mind and the soul. But the Father is God even when considered separately from the Son and the Spirit. Likewise for the spirit and for the body. These analogies, I find, are more misleading than helpful.

 

[Walkntune]

These analogies always break down because the mind, by itself, is not a human apart from the mind and the soul. But the Father is God even when considered separately from the Son and the Spirit. Likewise for the spirit and for the body. These analogies, I find, are more misleading than helpful.

You are created in the image of God. You are spirirt and not this earthly human body. You will still be you when you die.God is also Spirit and still God even when separate from body.

 

[Dunemeister]

You are created in the image of God. You are spirirt and not this earthly human body. You will still be you when you die.God is also Spirit and still God even when separate from body.

Worship Plato if you must.