The Trinity

[Composer]

1. a. The vital principle or animating force within living beings.
b. Incorporeal consciousness.

2. The soul, considered as departing from the body of a person at death.
3. Spirit The Holy Spirit.
4. A supernatural being, as: a. An angel or a demon.
b. A being inhabiting or embodying a particular place, object, or natural phenomenon.
c. A fairy or sprite.

spirit - definition of spirit by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Me: First, thanks for your reasonable response.

A man made Dictionary defining terms made by some men is hardly legitimate evidence, just the opoinions of those that fabricated that terminology for alleged properties that exist only in a story book. (I'll look at the alleged ' soul ' for starters)

God is spirit aka an incorporeal conscious, that is everywhere, so when it says that the heavens cannot contain him it means that his spirit is everywhere and is not just contained within a heavenly realm.

Apart from a story book please provide what alleged legitimate evidence you think you have that this God is a spirit?

but the spirit can also animate living things,

What alleged ' spirit ' are you referring to?

A story book ' spirit ' is just that!

so I dont see why God cannot be contained because of his spiritual nature, and also decide to "aminate flesh" after all its not like a spirit has any mass which means he would not fit inside the womb. I really dont see how this scripture holds up...

So now it isn't literally God that is literally contained in a woman's womb it's just an alleged ' Spirit that animated flesh? '

You should notice also that the actual trinitarian story book text version states that the ' spirit ' that was responsible for impregnating Mary was not God the Father ' person ' but the alleged ' Holy Spirit ' person? ' (Luke 1:35) KJV story book trinitarian version. So accordingly, the literal Father of this story book Jesus was NOT God the Father person, but the Holy Spirit ' person? '.

2. The soul, considered as departing from the body of a person at death.

I would also be interested in seeing what alleged legitimate evidence any have for the claim that we were ever ' given ' a separate immortal soul?

unless you have an answer.

Looking forward to your response to the above and further amicable discussion as necessary?

Cheers!

 

[Composer]

I also can't deal with incipient triumphalism.

. . . . If God [ be ] for us, who [ can be ] against us? (Rom. 8:31) KJV story book

Obviously you are a weak so called believer, hereby acknowledging your God isn't with you, hence your admission you can't deal with certain matters. (i.e. Like those like me that successfully expose your current ideology for the pretence it really is.)

("Legitimately" indeed! You're a riot!)

By you're own admission you are obviously one of those luke warm and ultimately doubting pretend believers.

 

[Dunemeister]

. . . . If God [ be ] for us, who [ can be ] against us? (Rom. 8:31) KJV story book

Obviously you are a weak so called believer, hereby acknowledging your God isn't with you, hence your admission you can't deal with certain matters. (i.e. Like those like me that successfully expose your current ideology for the pretence it really is.)


By you're own admission you are obviously one of those luke warm and ultimately doubting pretend believers.

:jiggy:

 

[Composer]

:jiggy:

opcorn:http://i43.servimg.com/u/f43/12/43/81/32/velvet10.gif

 

[tarasan]

1. a. The vital principle or animating force within living beings.
b. Incorporeal consciousness.

2. The soul, considered as departing from the body of a person at death.
3. Spirit The Holy Spirit.
4. A supernatural being, as: a. An angel or a demon.
b. A being inhabiting or embodying a particular place, object, or natural phenomenon.
c. A fairy or sprite.

spirit - definition of spirit by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Me: First, thanks for your reasonable response.

A man made Dictionary defining terms made by some men is hardly legitimate evidence, just the opoinions of those that fabricated that terminology for alleged properties that exist only in a story book. (I'll look at the alleged ' soul ' for starters)

This "story book is where every christian doctrine has its base, and this definition has its foundation in verses like john 4 verse 24. These definitions are roundly accepted by everyone, I see no reason why they cant be used as evidence.

[Apart from a story book please provide what alleged legitimate evidence you think you have that this God is a spirit?

we are talking about a Christian Doctrine I dont need to look into any other religion to say so, if you want to talk about a Christian doctrine you have to assume the bible is correct, if you arnt even going to grant that then you shouldnt be discussing christian dotrine.

[What alleged ' spirit ' are you referring to?

A story book ' spirit ' is just that!

This is about the trinity again you should be granting the premise that my God exists and that the bible is true to continue with teh discussion of doctrine.

[So now it isn't literally God that is literally contained in a woman's womb it's just an alleged ' Spirit that animated flesh? ')

It is literally God like I told you a spirit can animate flesh and has no mass, so their is no logical contridiction in that Im merely following a definition that is agreed upon.

[You should notice also that the actual trinitarian story book text version states that the ' spirit ' that was responsible for impregnating Mary was not God the Father ' person ' but the alleged ' Holy Spirit ' person? ' (Luke 1:35) KJV story book trinitarian version. So accordingly, the literal Father of this story book Jesus was NOT God the Father person, but the Holy Spirit ' person? '.

neither the holy spirit acuse the miricale that made her pregnaunt but it was no the holy spirit that was in the womb, rather the third member Jesus.

[I would also be interested in seeing what alleged legitimate evidence any have for the claim that we were ever ' given ' a separate immortal soul?

again Christian this is christian doctrine we assume there is one, this is discussion about the trinity in relation to competeing beliefs, feel you arnt really attacking the trinity but other doctrines that are on our church, if you want to start a new thread to debate these that is fine, but here when you are talking about one of the characteristics of God these things are assumed, and to argue them here would be going quite off topic.

[Looking forward to your response to the above and further amicable discussion as necessary?

Cheers!

 

[Composer]

[quote=tarasan;1918105]

1. a. The vital principle or animating force within living beings.

b. Incorporeal consciousness.

2. The soul, considered as departing from the body of a person at death.
3. Spirit The Holy Spirit.
4. A supernatural being, as: a. An angel or a demon.
b. A being inhabiting or embodying a particular place, object, or natural phenomenon.
c. A fairy or sprite.

spirit - definition of spirit by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Me: First, thanks for your reasonable response.

This "story book is where every christian doctrine has its base, and this definition has its foundation in verses like john 4 verse 24. These definitions are roundly accepted by everyone, I see no reason why they cant be used as evidence.

I regret your quoting story book text isn't legitimate evidence.

You FIRST need to legitimately establish the story book isn't just that, a story book?

It is a non sequitur to extract a response based purely upon a precept that has not been legitimately established.

Similarly I can claim the tooth fairy gave me a dollar for my tooth but unless I legitimately prove the tooth fairy literally exists, my claim is a non sequitur.

we are talking about a Christian Doctrine I dont need to look into any other religion to say so, if you want to talk about a Christian doctrine you have to assume the bible is correct, if you arnt even going to grant that then you shouldnt be discussing christian dotrine.

I ' assume ' nothing.

Until you legitimately establish the bible text is what so called christians claim it to be then you have no legitimate argument?

This is about the trinity again you should be granting the premise that my God exists and that the bible is true to continue with teh discussion of doctrine.

i) You FIRST need to legitimately establish your ' trinitarian God literally exists? '
ii) I am also most happy to discuss the story book text and how so called trinitarians corrupt the story book text to end up with their trinitarian ideology. We can do this however until such time as you legitimately demonstrate the story book is anything more than a story book then all your claims are based upon a story book?

In fact a story book (as I said) that you also incorrectly attempt to derive your current trinitarian & OR naughty fallen heavenly angel spirit being ideology from.

It is literally God like I told you a spirit can animate flesh and has no mass, so their is no logical contridiction in that Im merely following a definition that is agreed upon.

Agreed upon by whom?

Agreed upon on what alleged legitimate basis?

neither the holy spirit acuse the miricale that made her pregnaunt but it was no the holy spirit that was in the womb, rather the third member Jesus.

“The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow113 you. Therefore the child114 to be born115 will be holy;116 he will be called the Son of God. (Luke 1:35) NET story book

IF we believe the trinitarian hypothesis that their alleged ' Holy Spirit ' is ' a person ', then it stands to reason ' that person ' impregnated Mary!

again Christian this is christian doctrine we assume there is one, this is discussion about the trinity in relation to competeing beliefs, feel you arnt really attacking the trinity but other doctrines that are on our church, if you want to start a new thread to debate these that is fine, but here when you are talking about one of the characteristics of God these things are assumed, and to argue them here would be going quite off topic.

You make the fallacious mistake of ' assuming ' anything.

You FIRST need to legitimately demonstrate that your claims are legitimately supported with real evidence and not just story book quotes trying to justify your current and frankly unsubstantiated beliefs?

Thank you

 

[fatima_bintu_islam]

Muslims are unwilling to even try.

We dont try because of this:

[youtube]hHPn9EDd51o[/youtube]
Explaining trinity

 

[rusra02]

We dont try because of this:
[youtube]hHPn9EDd51o[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHPn9EDd51o

True Christians do not believe in the trinity. It is not a Bible teaching. In fact, believing this false teaching prevents one from coming to know the one true God, and appreciating the role Jesus Christ plays in fulfilling God's loving purpose.

 

[Muffled]

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.

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.

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.

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.

Thank you for the reference. My library didn't have it so I will have to look elsewhere.

My apologies. I remember you saying that now. I agree about distinctions but don't believe in personifying them like God the Merciful, God the Savior, God the Benficient.

Although there are distinctions they are not essential distinctions. In Jesus the Spirit of God inhabits a body. The body is a distinction but it is not essential to God. The same is true of the Paraclete, He has a multitude of bodies but none of them are essential to God.

It makes perfect sense. Prayer is a distinction that is related to the body which is not God. That which is not God must be in contact with that which is God. Sending is also not such a strange conception. It simply means moving something from one place to another. Traditionally that usually means something different is moved but in this case God is moving himself into a different situation. I can have this happen to me also. God is resident in me, but at times He will send me somewhere. However wherever I go, He goes also, and in effect He is sending Himself as well.

Again this is not an essential distinction but simply a matter of displacement. Jesus is gone and not able to testify of Himself except through the Paraclete.

I agree that there is a trinity and that there are distinctions. My only objection is to the use of the word "persons " which does not translate to reality to anyone outside of eccesiastical scholarship. And even then I am not sure that there isn't a false concept of three different persons as though there were three Spirits of God when EPH 4:4 tells us there is only one.

 

[Muffled]

In other words you can't legitimately refute my Post.

Still I knew that already hence your trinitarian doctrine remains in tatters at my feet and has done so personally for over 50 years so far and will continue to do so regardless of your pathetic insults and personal attacks in lieu of a shred of credibility for your lost trinitarian cause.

Next trinitarian that wants to try please step forward!

Cheers!

I suspect that he sees no point in casting pearls before swine.

Rofl! A previous mindset is true just because you believe it is?

This is simple, read all 172 pages of my thread "Is Jesus God" under religious Debates. God is God wherever He is despite the fact that He is omnipresent.

 

[Muffled]

We dont try because of this:

[youtube]hHPn9EDd51o[/youtube]
Explaining trinity

That explanation is almost as clear as the Qu'ran on the subject. I thought it was a nice touch for him to have the relevant scriptures from the Bible.

I think Muslims have the same problem as the people who believe in the doctrine of the Trinity and Composer. All have a previous mindset that keeps them from seeing the truth.

 

[tarasan]

That explanation is almost as clear as the Qu'ran on the subject. I thought it was a nice touch for him to have the relevant scriptures from the Bible.

I think Muslims have the same problem as the people who believe in the doctrine of the Trinity and Composer. All have a previous mindset that keeps them from seeing the truth.

what problem do you think they have? if u have already said it then please post the meaage number and have my appology

 

[fatima_bintu_islam]

All have a previous mindset that keeps them from seeing the truth.

The truth that you , super rational scientific logical atheists holded for millions of years while no one listened to you.

Please see my introduction post on the "introduce yourself" section, and see what i think of arrogant atheists who think they hold the keys to all the knowledge on this earth.

Best regards

 

[fatima_bintu_islam]

Also, I would like to apologise for the vid; I just remembered this verse of the Quran (29:46-47)

"46. And argue not with the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), unless it be in (a way) that is better (with good words and in good manner, inviting them to Isl�mic Monotheism with His Verses), except with such of them as do wrong, and say (to them): "We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you; our Il�h (God) and your Il�h (God) is One (i.e. All�h), and to Him we have submitted (as Muslims)."47. And thus We have sent down the Book (i.e this Qur'an) to you (O Muhammad

), and those whom We gave the Scripture [the Taur�t (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel) aforetime] believe therein as also do some of these (who are present with you now like 'Abdull�h bin Sal�m) and none but the disbelievers reject Our Ay�t [(proofs, signs, verses, lessons, etc., and deny Our Oneness of Lordship and Our Oneness of worship and Our Oneness of Our Names and Qualities: i.e. Isl�mic Monotheism)]."


I may agree with the message he wanted to convey, but I think that the sarcastic way he described it was a bit misplaced.
So, I wish you could accept my apologies for this.


Kind regards

 

[YmirGF]

1^3 = 1

I tend to view the Trinity as being 1 = 1 = 1, not as three distinct entities, but rather, different faces of the same being.
Heck, even Islam has their version of the Trinity in Allah, Muhammad and the Qur'an. You cannot really separate one from the other.

 

[fatima_bintu_islam]

Allow me to tell you that you are completely wrong in your last statement.
Allah is God, Quran is His word, and He transmetted it to His messenger.

For example: My voice and I , are not two different things, my voice is one of my attributes.
If you go to your friend and tell him what Ive been saying, does it make you a part of me??

Im sorry, but even the most ignorant child can understand that your statement is false. I may seem harsh, but Im just telling you the truth.

SIncerely

 

[Composer]

I suspect that he sees no point in casting pearls before swine.

Rofl! A previous mindset is true just because you believe it is?

This is simple, read all 172 pages of my thread "Is Jesus God" under religious Debates. God is God wherever He is despite the fact that He is omnipresent.

My pearls, so that's that!

Thank you for the support but I don't need it!

 

[Composer]

. . . . I think Muslims have the same problem as the people who believe in the doctrine of the Trinity and Composer. All have a previous mindset that keeps them from seeing the truth.

My mindset remains constant until or unless others present legitimate evidence to the contrary. 50 years so far and that hasn't happened, but I'm here (and elsewhere) as usual still giving others the opportunity to ' strut their stuff ' and have it scrutinised for legitimacy and have it compared with the truth I bring. I'm successful so far so I'll live with that very nicely and sit and wait for some one to legitimately demonstrate otherwise.

Thank you

 

[Composer]

Allow me to tell you that you are completely wrong in your last statement.
Allah is God,

That is the term you Muslems have chosen and that's that.

You could have called this God any name but God is a common title chosen by virtually all groups.

ALL of which are based upon fantasy, unless you think you have literally heard a voice telling you and can prove it?

Quran is His word,

Your alleged legitimate evidence is?

and He transmetted it to His messenger.

Your alleged legitimate evidence is?

" I may seem harsh, but I'm just telling you the absolute truth. "

 

[YmirGF]

Allow me to tell you that you are completely wrong in your last statement.
Allah is God, Quran is His word, and He transmetted it to His messenger.

Yes, I am quite aware of the story.

For example: My voice and I , are not two different things, my voice is one of my attributes.
If you go to your friend and tell him what Ive been saying, does it make you a part of me??

Obviously.

Im sorry, but even the most ignorant child can understand that your statement is false. I may seem harsh, but Im just telling you the truth.

SIncerely

I do recognize what you are alleging, Fatima, however in the sense that I mean it, it is a quite legitimate comparison. Uncomfortable though it is, it is an inescapable truth. Do try to appreciate the simple fact that I would never expect Muslims to agree with this perception as you are too close to the forest to see the trees.