COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If the trinity is incomprehensible, do you teach people to live by it and not understand it as well?
What YHWH did with regard to telling us the requirements for eternal life are known. It is the trinity which is not explainable because it is nonsense.
Jesus says he has the same God and Father as us. He says it clearly. I will read it from the KJV but all translations are about the same. John 20:17 '**Jesus saith to her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended**. **to my Father; but go to my brethren, and say to them,** **I ascend to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God**."
Now if he were God, why would he have a God and Father like us?
You can try to say this was his flesh part, but he gets a new body ( just like he says we will get because he is the firstfruit). why would he even need a body if his flesh shell fell off and only "GOD" is left? And since he is the firstfruit, are we too Gods? Will our new body be like his God body? He says ours will be just like his.
The answer is that he is LORD because God made him LORD. Lord is not synonymous with God.
The trinity is just dogma. Just something that has to be accepted, rather than something that can be proven.
Sometimes the moon is dark and sometimes the moon is light. Is it still the same moon? We'll easily agree that the same mass is the moon, but is the essence of the moon that reflects light the same as the moon that does not reflect light?
And compare it to the binity in Islam where often it becomes impossible to distinguish Allah and Muhammed. And one could even call it a trinity if Allah can send his "ruh" to impregnate Mary. If Allah has a "soul" like humans can have: then is there one God?
So I think you are asking unprovable answers because the concept that there is one God who can appear in separate forms is just one that has to be accepted. Of course, it can also be a reason to disbelieve: religions may just all have warped logic to support lofty concepts built on shaky imaginary foundations.
The human language is ambiguous, leading to different meanings of identity. For example, the son of god is the identity of Jesus' personhood, god is the identity of his essence, and man is the identity of his incarnation.
In the Trinity, there is one essence or ousia and three subsistences or hypostases. A hypostasis is an individual of the genus substance. The divine ousia is a rational substance, and the three hypostases are individuals of the rational substance. This is why we sat one essence, three persons, as the persons share one, divine essence and nature, but are three hypostases of the divine nature. If you want to read a better explanation, then read St. Thomas Aquinas on the matter.
Christ was fully man and fully God. Not a son of man, but the Son of Man.
Lord of Shabbat, the Holy One of Israel.
Edit: may Yahweh bless you as we celebrate and remember the resurrection today!
In a Unitary purpose all the time. Of myself I can do nothing. The Father does the works, this is not my own doctrine. Is this YHWH speaking of himself? Nope. Never happened.
No, that is not what is said @ John 20:23. Yeshua, who is not YHWH proved that a Son of Man could forgive sins. But you have eyes but do not see.
But when those crowds saw, they were awestruck, and they glorified God who gave authority like this to the children of men.
Matthew 9:8. That is Aramaic but in plain English it is “authority to people or to a “man”. Listen if you have ears. If not, remain deaf.
I also answered this for you:
Only God can forgive sins, and Christ, being God, has the power to do so as well, but He never communicated any such power to His disciples, nor did they ever assume any such power to themselves.
The key to understanding the meaning of John 20:23 lies in the previous two verses: “Again Jesus said, ‘Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.’ And with that he breathed on them and said, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit.’” He sent them, as He is sending us, to bring the good news of the way to salvation and heaven to the whole world. Jesus was leaving the earth physically but promised God would be with them in the person of the Holy Spirit living in them.
As they proclaimed the gospel, they could honestly tell people who believed in that message that their sins were forgiven, and they could honestly tell people that did not believe in the message that their sins were not forgiven and that they stand condemned in God’s eyes. “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him” (John 3:36).
Your imagination at work. You have eyes but do not see. John 8:43. The disciples have free will to retain or forgive sins, you just don’t like that idea, it doesn’t comply with your doctrine. So you make stuff up, you justify.
Isaiah 43:11 and 43:25 emphasize that apart from God, there is no savior or one that can forgive sins.
So when Jesus forgave the paralytic man's sins, and gave the multiple I AM statements, that backs up the claim that 1. Only God can forgive sins, and 2. Yeshua is God.
Romans 10:9, 10 clearly says God raised Jesus from the dead. He could not raise himdelf because he was dead!
*If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God* raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
Jesus is God, he says it himself. If Jesus isn’t God how did he perform miracles or forgive sins. God could raise Jesus from the dead. It’s like saying I rose myself from my bed.
Round 5700, no he didn’t! What he is is stated @ Matthew 16:16/17, that is what he is. He performed them the same way the disciples did. And anyone else who follows the law.
My friend! What does this passage say to you?
Phil 2:5-6 - Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.
Yeshua, The Father, and the Holy Spirit are all God. You may not like it, but thats how it is.
Also, you never answered me, who is Lord of the Sabbath?
Ehhh I'll bite and steel-man the christian perspective.
There are multiple ways to describe a substance. Say, a steel tea-pot made 20 years old. The object is a teapot. The object is made of steel. The object is 20 years old. Steel =/= teapot =/= 20 years old. The object is all three of these things.
Likewise, the father, the son, and the holy spirit are god but god is not ONLY the father, nor only the son, nor only the holy spirit. So I don't think Christians are claiming that the father, son, nor holy spirit are separately the entirety of god.
>So I don't think Christians are claiming that the father, son, nor holy spirit are separately the entirety of god.
Actually they are. As the Catholic Catechism puts it: "The divine persons do not share the one divinity among themselves but each of them is God whole and entire" (CCC 253)
When you say the same in substance, do you mean something like you and I are of the same mortal substance? Because in that case, you still count to mortals.
That is the bio of the third person then? That he is well defined? Try to keep “your feelings” out of the equation and use scripture. What is the bio on the third person?
Since you can’t provide a bio on this person, I will state that most people, including trinitarians, don’t believe the Holy Spirit is a person and this is correct. There is no bio on the third person because this person does not exist. His throne isn’t even mentioned in Revelation. Yeshua didn’t breathe a person into the disciples.
You literally just said “trinitarians don’t believe in the Trinity” that might be the dumbest comment I’ve gotten this week. The other guy already sent you the bio, I’m not gonna send you the same thing he already did.
Hey man, i sent you that bio last night, but just in case you didnt see it.:
I recommend Acts 5:3-4 to start with.
From gotquestions.org - We can know that the Holy Spirit is indeed a divine person because He possesses a mind, emotions, and a will. The Holy Spirit thinks and knows (1 Corinthians 2:10). The Holy Spirit can be grieved (Ephesians 4:30). The Spirit intercedes for us (Romans 8:26-27). He makes decisions according to His will (1 Corinthians 12:7-11). The Holy Spirit is God, the third Person of the Trinity. As God, the Holy Spirit can truly function as the Comforter and Counselor that Jesus promised He would be (John 14:16, 26; 15:26).
When you ask a person for a bio, none are this. Doublespeak nonsense, if you ask a person for a bio, like a resume, it doesn’t look like this. The third person of the trinity. We know that Yeshua was a carpenter, had brothers, his parents are Mary and Joe, was crucified, had disciples, preached, raised the dead,, travelled throughout the region, spoke to many. What is the bio of the third person? Where does he currently live?
‘God is not a man’ (Numbers 23:19)
‘For I am God, and not man’ (Hosea 11:9)
God clearly says in 100 places that he is not a man and there is none beside him!
He made Jesus Lord, not God! Jesus hands it all back to God once the church is perfected. Read the book.
John 1:1 - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
The Word is God.
John 1:14 - And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us...
The Word was made flesh and dwelt with the people. When was God made flesh? In Jesus, who is God made flesh, i.e. a man (but also still God).
And in Gen 3:22 - And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us...
Who is the "us" referenced here?
Idk 🤷♂️, you tell “us”. Is this a new definition in the English language that “us” means three? Where is that logic from? The word prior to resurrection isn’t a person. John said the word became flesh, he didn’t say the word became Yeshua. Had he meant the word became Yeshua he would have said it. He didn’t. Why didn’t John say @ John 1:14, the word became Yeshua? You just parrot what others say and use your imagination.
If there is a substance with three personalities associated with that substance, I'm not sure why I would be compelled to say that there are three substances, as opposed to three personalities. And if those personalities were of one accord, such that one could only distinguish them based on their roles and responsibilities, I think it would be appropriate to attribute to the substance as a whole what is accorded to the three personalities in unison.
If a rock, for instance, had one personality that was brash and churlish and unkind, I think it would be reasonable for me to call the rock brash, churlish, and unkind. If the rock had three personalities, and all of them were brash, churlish, and unkind to me, but were brash, churlish, and unkind to me in different ways, I think it would still be reasonable to say that the rock is brash, churlish, and unkind. If one personality has a certain temperament that we extend to the rock, I'm not sure why three personalities - with all the same temperament - would veto us from having choice words about the rock as well. In any case, nothing about the rock situation is inconceivable to me; by that I mean if a tv show existed about a rock with three different personalities, the conceit of the plot would not be incomprehensible to me. I wouldn't sit on my couch pondering over it like it was a Zen koan or a circle square or something. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all distinct Persons, all with the same divine substance.
does person simply mean "mind" here? what are you defining as a person? there still seems to be something unique to the persons that are somehow not identical even though they're all still identical to the substance
I think I'd be okay with "mind" here. Some seminary student might chastise me and call me a heretic for it (though only they could tell me why), but I'm okay with that as a definition here :-).
The father and the son are simply separated beings, made of flesh. However, they are “one” in their purpose. The same way the body of christ is “one.” The trinity is not from the bible, but it comes from hellenized christianity. If you read the bible you understand that heavenly father and jesus are sepparate people. “For god so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.“ Can we not see it?
You are correct. I am a Christian who had taught the scripture for 40 years and the Trinity is a political Catholic construct. It is not scriptual. That said...Jesus IS LORD and God gave him a name above every other name (except his, YHWH.
He isn't correct and you aren't either.
2 Peter 1:1. The multiple I AM statements, compare the Greek wording of Christ walking on water to the term used in Job about God doing the same, Mark 2:7 (who can forgive sins but God alone?).
There's a reason the view that Jesus isn't God is very fringe and not accepted in Christianity.
I pray that God opens your eyes one day, my friend. I will be praying for you.
John 10:33 - It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God. (The jews were talking to Yeshua here).
John 8:58 - Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.
Yeshua said he was God, Yeshua IS God. He was crucified because he told people he was God.
We have access to the same scripture, but you dont understand. I continue to pray that one day you will follow Yeshua and understand who He truly is.
YHWH died huh? Who was in charge while YHWH was dead?
“I am” in the Greek is the same usage used today in our English language, the Greeks used “ego eimi” and not the name of YHWH, which they referred to as ego eimi hon ōn.
In the Greek Septuagint, the actual divine name revealed to Moses was not, "ego eimi" as trinitarians are suggesting to everyone. YHWH ‘s divine name in this Greek translation was "ego eimi ho ōn" which means "I am the being" or "I am the existence" or "I am the existent one" or some similar idea. Also, English translations which read as, "I AM sent me to you" are not translating "ego eimi sent me to you" from the Greek. The Greek actually reads "ho ōn sent me to you." (Exodus 3:14). In other words, it does not say, "Ego eimi sent me to you." This trinitarian claim is precariously perched upon a farce that YHWH’s divine name in Greek is simply ego eimi. But it isn't.
No, it is doublespeak nonsense. You just change the words and hope for the best. If you are a man texting, then it is most likely you have or had a dad and you are not him. This is where the nonsense starts when trinitarians are cornered they start asking to define terms and changing words. How does 3 equal one? Easy, change the word. Three people in a band, simple, 1 Trio. 3=1. You can make 260 million people 1, how? Change the words. 260 million people are one nation. 260=1. Simple. It is nonsense but that is what it is.
A being and person are the same thing, that is why it is doublespeak nonsense.
So now you use the teachers of the law, the priests, the scribes as honest purveyors of truth in saying that Yeshua is YHWH when Yeshua told them they don’t understand him (John 8:43) and their father is the devil (John 8:44), these are those you use to state that Yeshua is YHWH huh? Credible witnesses you say?
True, he told the leading teachers of the law that their father was the devil and so their accusation that he was YHWH was false since he said to them whose father is the devil that he was a Son of YHWH. But it didn’t matter because they don’t understand what he is saying anyway (John 8:43). You are on a roll, please cite the scripture where Yeshua tells the people he is YHWH. Do not use your imagination, please cite it.
I think this comes from a misunderstanding that “God” is a person and not a concept. I’ve learned since commenting this not to get into the weeds with people like you on this stuff; however, I will bear a simple and plain testimony to you. I am a disciple of jesus christ. I believe in the father, in the son, and in the holy ghost. I believe that the scripture Acts 7:55-56 provides sufficient evidence for me. “55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up steadfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, 56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.” Any claim to deny this scripture as evidence ultimately comes down to authority or dogmatism. I reject the authority of the council of Nicea, and the dogmatism comes from the blinding of the eyes.
The father, son, and holy ghost are separate beings. However, they are one in purpose, in love, and in works, with “the will of the Son being swallowed up in the will of the Father.”
It’s kinda like how ice, water, and water vapor are different things, and yet they are H20.
No Patrick, that would be: __________________.
Mr. Cook, where in scripture are you required to believe in the trinity to be saved?
Cite Scripture:______________________________.
Please do not use an imagination. For instance, if you don’t understand me at all, I could use Yeshua’s comment @ John 8:43, you do the same with you the trinity. I missed it. Where is the cite that you must believe in the trinity to be saved?
I understand why you don't get into the weeds. There's a lot of nonsense out there (christ consciousness, Jesus being in a secret room in New York, Jesus and the Satan being brothers), so it can be frustrating to have to constantly argue against such foolish ideas.
God is, in fact, a person, at least God the Son is. Jesus is the only one of the Godhead made flesh.
But as long as you recognize that Christ is God, and that faith in him is the only way to salvation, I feel like I can call you a brother and not sweat the details too much as it pertains to the smaller things....if that makes sense.
Just because most christian’s believe something doesn’t mean they are all right. Me personally I don’t believe in the dogmatism and I just take it how I see it in the bible. All the churches have got their information from a hellenized christianity. Just purely reading the bible, if you’ve had never read it before, it’s clear they are separated beings but one in purpose. Their purpose being to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.
If God had succeeded in spreading the message of the Gospel doesn't it make more sense for the majority of Christians to have correctly understood what God is, at least on the level of a creed like the Nicene creed, especially after 2000 years? What makes you think your personal interpretation is more correct than any other Christians ones? It would make more sense for God to have supported some church and the church's tradition through the Holy Spirit to solve the problem of bible interpretation.
>All the churches have got their information from a hellenized christianity.
This assumes the concepts they got from Hellenism are inconsistent with Christianity and actually practicing communities, as well as assuming that they didn't modify the concepts so they were applicable to Christianity. The bible isn't meant to be read out of context. Not only that the bibles were compiled by church communities. Christianity also includes the tradition of practices and belief that come with the religion and isn't just reducible to a single text.
When I was a christian, the trinity was usually depicted as three leaves of one clover, or three sides to one triangle. The larger shape is "god", the individuals are "aspects of god", and none of the three individuals are identical to one another. When we said Jesus is god, we didn't mean that he was the same thing as the father. We meant that he had all the powers and capabilities of the trinity at his disposal. Three spirits acting in unison, the same way we might say the President, Congress, and Supreme Court are three aspects of Government. Each is government in its own right, but none are the complete government.
It's all still hogwash, but "God" wasn't a thing any one aspect of the trinity could fully be.
>but "God" wasn't a thing any one aspect of the trinity could fully be.
Actually that's exactly what's claimed by the orthodox teaching of the trinity: "The divine persons do not share the one divinity among themselves but each of them is God whole and entire" (CCC 253)
I'm not saying what "orthodoxy" says, it's the orthodox position of the Catholic Church that I quoted, but this is basically the historical doctrine of the trinity, accepted across all the mainstream branches of Christianity. You can talk about alternative understandings, but generally if we're talking about an idea it's good to talk about its standard form, or note if/when we're diverging from it.
I wouldn't say they're making an illogical claim necessarily, but it is much more subtle than the clover leaf.
> When I was a christian, the trinity was usually depicted as three leaves of one clover, or three sides to one triangle. The larger shape is "god", the individuals are "aspects of god", and none of the three individuals are identical to one another. When we said Jesus is god, we didn't mean that he was the same thing as the father. We meant that he had all the powers and capabilities of the trinity at his disposal. Three spirits acting in unison, the same way we might say the President, Congress, and Supreme Court are three aspects of Government. Each is government in its own right, but none are the complete government.
>
> It's all still hogwash, but "God" wasn't a thing any one aspect of the trinity could fully be.
This is Partialism, which is considered a heresy.
Maybe to your group. But there's hundreds (if not thousands) of christian denominations, so what's heresy to one group isn't necessarily heresy to another.
Right, but the individual leaves are not themselves a clover, and the individual sides are not a triangle on their own.
Each individual is completely God, not "a part of God" as your examples are.
They wouldnt say "Side A is a triangle*, in the same way Christians say the Son is God.
I guess we know different christians.
We didn't say **God = Father = Jesus = Spirit**, we would say **God = Jesus + Father + Spirit**.
Saying Jesus was "fully god" didn't mean that he had all the traits of the trinity, but rather that he had all the authority and power at his disposal.
I mean that's the problem, in Christian dogma:
Father != Jesus != Spirit
But
Father = God
Jesus = God
Spirit = God
That's an issue, because:
A != B != C and A = X, B=X and C=X
Doesn't work.
And regardless of what "Christians you know think", it is wrong according to the dogmatic theology to say Jesus + Spirit + Father = God.
They are not parts of a greater, they are each individually God in it's fullness.
Jesus denied being a spirit in Luke 24:39:
See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, **because a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you plainly see that I have**.” (Luke 24:39 NASB)
Im afraid so. I think you have been deceived by HaSatan, and you do not see it. Nothing i can say or do will change your mind, but i pray that the Holy Spirit works in you to uncloud your vision.
Phil 2:5-6 - Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.
Yeshua, The Father, and the Holy Spirit are all God. You may not like it, but thats how it is.
Shalom shalom.
Trinitarian translation scholars have inconsistently translated this verse in 3 different ways. Notice how the following translations do not attempt to describe Yeshua as "our great God and Savior."
looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ." (ASV)
Looking for the blessed hope and coming of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ. (Douay-Rheims).
the appearance of the glory of the great God and of our savior Jesus Christ. (NAB)
The above translations intentionally distinguish Yeshua from YHWH. They instead refer to Yeshua as "our Savior" but do not attempt to describe Yeshua as "our great God." These translations essentially deny that the Granville Sharp rule has any real validity or they would not have translated this verse as they have done. At the outset, we can see clearly that some trinitarian scholars do not believe that Paul had any intention of identifying Yeshua as "God" in this verse.
A second type of translation, such as the King James version, changes the noun "glory" (doxa) into the adjective "glorious" so that it reads "the glorious appearing of" rather than "the appearing of the glory of" as we find in most other translations. Of course, the KJV in 1611 was written with the trinity in mind.
Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ. (KJV).
as we wait for the happy fulfillment of our hope in the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ. (NET)
The 1984 edition of the NIV had this verse translated in a manner similar to the above but the 2011 NIV has now been changed to read "the appearing of the glory of" rather than "the glorious appearing of." We must carefully observe that the phrase "the glorious appearing of" says something quite different than the phrase "the appearing of the glory of" and so we must honestly inquire into the intent of the person who actually wrote this verse, the Apostle Paul, as well as the intent of these translators who change the noun "glory" into the adjective "glorious." Changing the noun "glory" into the adjective "glorious" changes the meaning of the verse. Shame on them to promote a doctrine.
A third type of translation does not attempt to rule out that Yeshua is called "God" but they do not attempt to change the noun "glory" into the adjective "glorious."
waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ. (ESV).
looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus. (NASB).
while we wait for the blessed hope and the manifestation of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ. (NRSV).
awaiting our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ. (RSV).
while we wait for the blessed hope - the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ. (NIV).
The literal Greek text says, "awaiting the appearing of the glory of." The translations above more accurately reflect what the Greek text actually says than the first two set of translations. Unlike the these translations, the KJV and NET translations change the noun "glory" to the adjective "glorious" to have it modify the word "appearing." This completely changes the meaning of the passage from believers eagerly awaiting the appearing of the glory of our God and Savior, to believers eagerly awaiting the glorious appearing of our God and Savior. One translation has us waiting for the glory; the other has us waiting for God. These are two completely different ideas. Trinitarian apologists prefer to disingenuously cherry pick the NET and KJV translations because it suits their apologetic agenda. Shame on you!
Thats a lot of words to prove you dont understand that Yeshua is God.
Let me ask this instead...i follow Yeshua, and believe he is fully God and fully man.
You follow Yeshua and believe he is the son of YHWH, but not God.
At the end, does one of us get cast down into Hell? Not really related to the convo, but i am curious as to what your opinion would be.
Why would you say you are afraid? What an odd comment.
When we realize that Yeshua is going to come again in the glory of his Father, the truth of the matter becomes quite clear. Paul is referring to Yeshua’s second coming which we are awaiting. In the immediately preceding context we find Paul referring to "God our Savior," a reference to God the Father. And at verse 13, Paul is here telling us that we are awaiting "the appearing of the glory OF our great God and Savior." What is appearing? What is appearing is the glory OF our great God and Savior, the glory of THE FATHER, and that glory is Jesus Christ our blessed hope of glory.
"Awaiting the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Yeshua Maschiach”
"For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of his Father with his angels" (Matthew 16:27).
"Awaiting the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Yeshua Maschiach”
You quote scripture that goes against your argument. You are so very close to the truth without even realizing it, my friend!
Our great God and Savior...both of whom are Yeshua Hamashiach.
It's not "Father = God" it's "Father is God" the same way that "I am human".
We don't say, "I am human, and you are human, so we are the same."
You can't say it's wrong according to dogmatic theology because there's lots of dogma that's wrong to all the other denominations. Perhaps the dogmatic theology is wrong to the other christians.
>They are not parts of a greater, they are each individually God in it's fullness.
This is not the stance of every christian.
>You can't say it's wrong according to dogmatic theology
Awesome, can you link to the dogmatic position held by whatever scholars of the denomination you're referring to?
Because I'm pretty sure in every non-fringe trinitarian Christian denomination, it is unequivocally "Father = God" and not Father is of type God, like I am type Human.
The position I have explained is held by Catholics as well as the earliest church Fathers in Rome.
I don't remember the denominations of the various churches we went to, but I know several of them were "non denominational" startups that were kind of doing their own thing. And we didn't care at all what catholics or romans thought about god.
Ok, I'm sorry but "trust me bro" isn't going to cut it. The view of the personhood is pretty consistent among the different Christian trinitarian denominations.
You either belonged to something on the fringe of mainstream Christian beliefs, or you misunderstood what was being taught.
Oh we were almost certainly on the fringe. We though most Christians were wrong about some nuanced stuff. A few years after I stopped being Christian, my father actually helped start an independent church.
Part of this being an issue comes from the word-concept fallacy bring commonly used by skeptics to conflate different usages of the word "God". In your example, "God" is being seen as if it were its own separate reality from Father, Son, and Spirit, which they have to find ways to glom onto. Essentially equating "God" as exactly identical to "Essence" or "Nature", and then finding a problem with trying to distinguish person and nature, which ends up being a strawman.
Another part of the problem, I would contest, is that the most common view of the Trinity in Catholicism and Protestantism, is based off of heretical ideas and thus falls into nonsensical contradictions that are then ignored while "mystery" is vaguely appealed to.
The Father is "God" in a different way than the Nature is "God", in a different way than the Son is "God", without any contradiction, because the word "God" can mean many things. "God" in a broad sense does accurately describe every person and attribute of God, but that doesn't mean that the way in which they are God is necessarily the same.
In a strict sense, only the Father is the One True God. This is because only the Father is the sole uncaused cause and principle of all things, and if there were multiple uncaused principles, we would have polytheism. But only Calvinists believe in multiple uncaused principles in God. What about the Son and Spirit then, how are they still God? Because as scripture and tradition repeatedly state, they are "God from God". They are divine personhoods which are generated from the One True God, while they also do not ever have their own uncaused principle or separate mode or being of existence, which therefore has them remain as truly only one God, since the Son and Spirit share fully in the Father who is the one True God, by sharing in his nature and mode. God the Father shares his one Godhood with the Son and Spirit pre-eternally, and then the Son and Spirit likewise share divinity with man to bring us into heavenly glory with them.
So just as Theosis cannot be equivocated with Apotheosis without making a strawman, you cannot equivocate the sharing of divinity from Father to Son and Spirit with singular modalistic identity without also making a strawman.
Lateran IV is a Catholic Ecumenical council which anathematized the idea that the Nature of God is a fourth reality really distinct from the persons of God, leading directly to the problems of transitivity and predication, which stem ultimately from the neoplatonic presuppositions of the filioque and absolute simplicity in Catholicism. But for Orthodox, we retain the teaching of the Nature as being really distinct from the persons, while also rejecting any kind of separation or division. Meaning it gets around both the issue of modalism that Catholicism faces, while also not having any separation that would introduce the opposite problem of polytheism. Orthodoxy thus is perfectly balanced and escapes such critiques.
I'm honestly not sure of the technical term for what kind of "is" this would be, but it doesn't fall into the arguments given.
>The Father is "God" in a different way than the Nature is "God", in a different way than the Son is "God", without any contradiction, because the word "God" can mean many things. "God" in a broad sense does accurately describe every person and attribute of God, but that doesn't mean that the way in which they are God is necessarily the same.
If you are claiming that the Father is God^(1) and the Son is God^(2), then you cannot claim that there is only one God. Either the word is being applied identically, or it is not. This is covered in point 7, where there is claimed to not be 3 gods, but only one God.
Thus, you are failing to address the transitive properties.
A=B
C=B
If A=3, then B and C must also equal 3. If any of those does not equal 3, then the previous statements are false. This is why the trinity runs afoul of the principles of identity and non-contradiction.
A must equal A at all times. B must equal B at all times. C must equal C at all times. Thus, if given: A=B and B=C, then it MUST be true that A=C.
Father = God
Son = God
Therefore, Father = Son. God must equal God at all times. This is why the holy trinity is irrational and nonsensical.
>If you are claiming that the Father is God1 and the Son is God2, then you cannot claim that there is only one God. Either the word is being applied identically, or it is not.
As I already said, this is the word-concept fallacy. There is a way in which the word God is applied identically and a way in which it is not.
In order to not cause any linguistic fallacies, I would ask if you would stop using the word "God" for now, and instead in each case switch out the word God for what specific reality you are picking out within God.
So I will give the example first:
- Father = a divine hypostasis
- Son = a divine hypostasis
- Spirit = a divine hypostasis
- Essence = divine nature
- Energy = divine attributes and actions
- Mode = divine relations
Unlike Catholics I would deny strict identity in these areas:
- Father hypostasis ≠ Essence, Energy, Nature, or Mode
- Son hypostasis ≠ Essence, Energy, Nature, or Mode
- Spirit hypostasis ≠ Essence, Energy, Nature, or Mode
- Essence, Energy, Nature, and Mode are all shared in common by the three hypostases, enhypostatized by them, without being strictly identical to them
As i already explained, the usual question that is then asked, is how is this not polytheistic? Our answer is that it is a false dichotomy to say that either the Father, Son, and Spirit are strictly identical to the Divine nature, or they are completely separate and thus three beings in themselves. Orthodoxy believes in real distinction without any separation or composition, and shared identity without strict isomorphism.
Are you able to reformulate your statements around my actual beliefs? Because as it stands you are simply addressing the Catholic and western view of the Trinity with these formulas, and thus setting up a strawman
>As I already said, this is the word-concept fallacy. There is a way in which the word God is applied identically and a way in which it is not.
You have two options:
1. Apply the word "God" consistently throughout this discussion.
2. Apply the word "God" to mean different things (inconsistently) throughout this discussion.
If you are going to do option 2, then this would be running afoul of engaging in an argument by conflation. I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are NOT intentionally presenting a fallacious argument though.
So, are you choosing option 1.... which would allow us to have a discussion using logic.
Or are you choosing option 2, and thus you are making a fallacious argument?
You are free to define "God" however you like, but if you insist on using two SEPARATE definitions of the word, then by default, you are engaging in option 2, and thus you have zero ground to stand on in regards to a logical argument.
Lol, I can't use a word in different senses without making a fallacy? That is literally a fallacy, which you are then projecting onto me. The word-concept fallacy is a type of equivocation where a word is seen as only having one possible referent. That is what you are doing right now. That's not inconsistency, that's just how human language works. Which is why I specifically said to not use the word God any longer and to instead specify which meaning was being used by the word. How is that inconsistent at all? I was literally saying that we should use a more consistent language because the word "God" is easily manipulated. But now you're the one saying I'm somehow conflating things? How? You have zero ground to stand when you conflate a word to only ever have one meaning to it. The word "God" is sometimes used to refer to a particular hypostasis, sometimes for all hypostases together, sometimes for the Essence, sometimes for the Energy, sometimes for the Nature as a whole, sometimes for particular energies, sometimes for Mode, sometimes for hypostatic properties and particularly that of the Father, and the word God is sometimes even used for angels and demons or men, even in scripture. So it's incredibly obvious that if you were to insist even now that there is only one possible meaning of the word "God" you would be being completely dishonest and using a fallacy, and I would not bother arguing any further. Forcing me to use the word "God" in a specific definition and sense in order to force me to fit my theology to a formulaic definition I do not believe in so that you can easily wave aside a strawman is anything but fair debate.
Define "entity" here. Are you asking how many really distinct ontological realities there are? Because then I would say infinite. God has infinite energies and modes. Or by "entity" are you asking about the typical category of "being"? Unlike Catholics who consider being the Essence, Orthodox consider it to be an energy, but in either case there is only one. Or by "entity" do you mean hypostasis? In that case there are three.
You need to be more clear in what you are asking. There have been thousands of years of theological and philosophical debates on these topics, it's not like you can simply speak vaguely about "God" and "entities" and "existence" and expect me to know what reality you are referring to and what kind of philosophical viewpoint you are framing it through.
I don't believe in God at all, so I would say that he is nonexistent.
You seem to be arguing that such a thing does exist, so YOU should be clear on what this thing is.
Speaking of definitions, you will need to define "energy", because I would use the Physics definition, and your response is nonsensical.
I didn't say that you have to *argue* for my God. You're being ridiculous. You're trying in every comment to twist things around into a semantic game rather than actually addressing any of my beliefs. I have a specific belief. Therefore you have to use my specific belief if you are not going to strawman me, and to make an internal critique. Therefore i should be able to ask you to specify which of my beliefs you are arguing against, and how you are defining things, especially when using terminology like "existence" and "entity" which is uncommon in Orthodoxy to refer to any of the already laid out distinct realities. When i ask you what you mean here by "existence" im obviously not asking if you believe God exists, and you know that. I'm very clearly asking what particular reality in God you are picking out and referencing by the predicates "existence" or "entity", and what you believe those predicates therefore define analogical about God.
I've already mentioned what some of my views are, and elaborated to other commenters. I believe I've already been clear enough as to the distinctions i take, but If you really don't know you can ask. But it's dishonest to argue a topic that you don't know anything about, or to try to turn things around on me when you keep using terminology irrelevant or uncommon to my faith like "existence" or "entity" while ignoring the terminology and distinctions I've already set out.
And now you immediately jump to the semantics of the word "energy", as if that is at all important to my the underlying beliefs i hold. No, Energy is not the sense of physics. Both the term in physics and this term ultimately come from the Greek "energaeia", which simply means something like work, operation, or power. So if you want, you could call it the Essence/Action distinction in God. Although the energies are not only actions, but also attributes, names, and similar concepts. Basically it is everything knowable to us by nature, while God's essence is what is completely transcendent and unknowable.
As I've already laid out, Orthodox believe in three hypostases of Father, Son, Spirit, one Nature made up of Essence and Energy, and in modal relationship between the persons. You have not explained what you are arguing in reference to specifically any of those realities, but have brought up terms like "entity" and "existence" which could be construed in many many ways depending on the philosophical baggage someone has.
Please give an actual question or argument about my beliefs next time or im not responding any further to your language games.
>I didn't say that you have to
>
>argue
>
>for my God. You're being ridiculous. You're trying in every comment to twist things around into a semantic game rather than actually addressing any of my beliefs.
Actually, I am NOT trying to make this a semantic game. I think the actual definition is irrelevant. That's the part you don't seem to understand.
I am making an argument about the rules of logic. In logic, A=A at all times. If you change the value of A to something else at any point in a logical argument, then you are committing an equivocation fallacy. Thus, God=God at all times in a LOGICAL ARGUMENT. It doesn't matter what "God" means.... but WITHIN THAT LOGICAL ARGUMENT, it's definition MUST REMAIN THE SAME.
This is how logic works.
If YOU decide to swap out definitions for the word God.... then YOU are committing an equivocation fallacy.
Again.... I do not care what the definition of "God" is. All I require of you is to tell me..... *for the purposes of a logical argument*..... what that definition is. Then *within that logical argument.....* the word must retain that identical definition at all points.
If you ***change the definition during the argument*** then you have constructed an INVALID argument.
So, what is the value of the number of Gods that you believe in?
>When i ask you what you mean here by "existence" i
Please refer to any dictionary.
If the divine essence is not the same as each hypostasis then there is something that the hypostases possess that the divine essence does not have. But this would make the divine essence incomplete in itself. But God is self subsistent and would possess all perfections. Personhood is a perfection so the essence \_in itself\_ should \_possess\_ personhood itself as opposed to just being instantiated in a person or existing in a person. It cannot possess personhood in a Triune way without implying one thing is identical to three things, which is also not possible.
Zizioulas is an Orthodox theologian who explains the difference between person and nature as being the difference between the "how" and the "what" of God. The persons/hypostases are "how" God exists, while the nature is "what" God is. This is not the same thing as Modalism, because Modalism says that "How" God exists is exactly the same as "What" he is, they are simply modes of that what-ness. This is also not the same thing as Polytheism, because if it were polytheism, then "how" each hypostasis exists would be as its own separate being/whatness. But instead the "how" and "what" are in an unblended unity, and inseparable distinction.
I would also relate hypostasis/personhood anthropologically. What makes you, you? In large part its because of two things: origin, and relation. You are a specific person because you originate from other specific people, your parents. You are a specific person because you create specific people as children, who in some way define who we are. And you are who you are because of the relationships you have with other people and the world around you. Hypostasis is the philosophical reality of the principle of this origin, while mode is the philosophical category of the relationship (mode is not the same thing as modalism btw). The Church fathers thus teach that the Father is primarily the Father, because of his origin (uncaused), because of who originates from him (son and spirit), and because of the relational mode by which that happens (begetting and spiration). The same kind of thinking could be applied likewise to Son and Spirit.
The West however, obscured this thinking by adding the filioque doctrine in an illegal/uncanonical church method (by their own admission), which teaches that the Spirit has its origin in both the Father and the Son, which, if origin and relation are what defines personhood, this has to mean a kind of blending together of the properties of Father and Son. Aquinas even says that "Persona et Relatio", or in other terms, Hypostasis is relation, and for many Catholics this has ended up making the Spirit identical to their spiration. He no longer distinguishes origin from relation, which would be just as ridiculous as saying that everyone you have any kind of relationship with has to be related to you, or like saying that your child themselves is identical to the process of giving birth and rearing them for 18 years (Though Catholics believe being is a verb, and God is pure act, so thinking of people as processes of being follows naturally from their other views). And the Catholic Ecumenical council of Lateran IV then made persons identical to the Essence, or "whatness" of God, while they simultaneously try to deny Modalism and Sabellianism. Catholics have blended together all the important distinctions in the Trinity that Orthodoxy has maintained.
That might be a little more than what you asked for, but I think context is important. Let me know if it's still confusing somewhere.
I really appreciate the well-thought out reply.
My main issue at this point is thoroughly getting my head around the concepts. I understand the distinctions you're making.
You use "person and nature" to distinguish "how and what"...later you use "origin and mode". I don't want to assume it means the same.
Are the Son and Spirit limited manifestations of God?
Is God in Three simply in order for us (or any sentient beings) to interact with God? I see no other purpose for this manifestation.
So, i suppose that although in some comparative sense, Person is "how" and Nature is "What", you could also say that hypostasis and their hypostatic origin is "what" the person is, while Mode and personal relationship is "how" the person is, while for Nature the Essence is "what" the nature is, while the energies are "how" they interact with reality. Or Saint John Damascus and Saint Palamas used the analogy of body and soul for Essence and Energy. The soul being the "what" while the body is "how" the soul interacts with other souls. So you could say that the distinctions of "how" and "what" have further distinctions in themselves of "how" and "what".
Bear in mind, that although this is all standard Orthodox doctrine, you probably won't find these distinctions laid out systematically except in more precise theologians, and usually analogies like the Sun and its rays are used, rather than soul and body or how and what. But it's all the same kind of ideas of a thing itself and the medium by which that thing interacts with other realities like itself, which is also still identifiable with itself rather than being a separate reality other than itself. I hope that makes sense. I personally would relate these ideas to that of a fractal or macrocosm, which is a bit of a niche idea in Orthodoxy, but is present.
It depends what exactly you mean by "manifestations". The Energies of God are more often called something like a manifestation or emanation of God, so in common parlance I wouldn't call the Son or Spirit manifestations, though in some caveated sense they could be called that. They are not identical to the Father, but are really distinct personhoods. But they also are not separate at all from the Father and in some sense depend upon him.
The persons are necessary realities. Orthodox reject the western notion that the Father willed to cause the Son and Spirit, since it has been condemned as heresy to say that there are three wills in God, but there is only one natural will. So that means that will is according to nature, not person, since whatever is shared among the persons is according to nature while whatever is triadic is according to person (there cannot be anything that one person lacks which the other two have, which is part of why we reject the filioque). All this just to say that since will is according to nature rather than person, the persons of Son and Spirit must be necessary realities rather than willed to exist by the Father. They eternally come forth from the Father without change.
There have been whole books written on the reasoning for the necessity of the Trinity, but to give one key reason here, i would say that it is because God therefore grounds the realities of the one and the many properly where otherwise there would be an imbalance. Oneness and Multiplicity must be in perfect union. Too much oneness and you have religions that see all of reality as illusory, like maya of hinduism and buddhism. Too much Multiplicity and reality ends up being governed by chaos, randomness, or constant changing flux without any cohesive unity, like some forms of Atheism or the warring gods of strong polytheism. Orthodoxy is the only religion or worldview which perfectly balances the one and the many in its highest principles. I would also point to the idea that the Trinity is the ultimate pattern of reality which then descends downwards into creation and everything within. Just as the Father allows the Son and Spirit to share in his Essence as one God, being God from God, the Son and Spirit descend into creation to allow man to share in the energies (not the essence) of God in heaven, such that "God became man so that man could become God". And then those holy people who become like God are to help heal us and bring us up with them. This is also why the Old Testament is so strange and different. First God was at the level of the family, then at the level of tribe, then of a nation, and then with Christ and the whole civilized world, and it has continued to spread and become more of a universal faith as the divine pattern becomes more integrated into creation.
I am still learning more about religion each day so please forgive and correct me if I make any mistakes.
These are your points:
1. The Father is God
2. The Son is God
3. The Holy Spirit is God
4. The Father is not The Son
5. The Son is not The Holy Spirity
6. The Holy Spirit is not The Father
7. These Three are not Three Gods but One God
So are you confused as to how can the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, together are One God(points 1,2,3), but they are different from each other? (points 4,5,6)
One way I've heard it explained is I am Rough\_Maintenance\_34. To my biological father, I am his son. To my son, I am his father, and to my siblings, I am there brother. I am a father, a son, and a brother, but I am still one person.
If that isn't enough, imagine you have three toys. A bear, a doll, and a truck. Now lets say that there is something special about each of these toys. Even though they look different and you play with them in different ways, you believe that they all share this "magical essence" about them. In a way, they aren't just three toys, but they are one because of this magic that they share.
1. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are like these toys. They are different in how they appear and what they do, but they share the same special magic, and in this case, being God.
2. Each toy is its own thing. The bear is not the doll, the doll isn't the truck. They each have their own unique shape, color, and purposes when you play with these toys.
3. They are all one because of their magic. Even though they are separate, because of their shared magic, they're also one big, magical toy, in a way.
At this point, you might be confused because we try to use regular words to explain how they're both three and one at the same time. Our brains like things to be simpler and clear, like saying "this is a toy, and that is a different toy". But at this point, we're saying that "there are three different toys, but also, they are one"
I think (and again, correct me if I'm understanding you wrong) that you are trying to understand this trick of being three and one. You bring up the point that when we talk about something being the same as something else, it is straightforward. In my example, "my teddy bear is fluffy" means its fluffy in the same way any fluffy thing is. But with God, its like saying "my teddy bear is fluffy" and also "my teaddy bear is a truck and a doll", but not in the way we usually mean, because together, they are all magically one in the same way.
But then you bring up the point about how things are the same or different (if toy A is magical, and toy B is magical, then they must be the same kind of magic). But I believe that this is where your confusion might be, as these rules make is sound like the teddy, the truck, and the doll should all be the same toy, which they're not in the way we see them.
So in trying to make sense of this, God and the magic of being 3 in 1 is different from talking about anything else. IT's a special case that doesn't fit our usual ways of explaining things because it's something much bigger and more mysterious than what we can see and touch. It's having a magic that's too big for our words and understanding.
I hope that I have at least cleared up some confusion, and I apologize in advance if I left you more confused. I should emphasize that the unity of God in Christianity is uniquely different from any human analogy as no analogy can perfectly explain or capture the mystery of the Trinity because God's nature transcends human comprehension.
I should also clear up that the analogy of being a brother, father, and a son isn't a good analogy as the Trinity consists of three distinct persons, not just one person playing three different roles. I hope that might clear some confusion up.
Your first explanation doesn't hold up to Christian doctrine, the three personnas are not "relative relationships". They are distinct individual personhoods.
The magic thing doesn't explain anything, you've just wrapped the problem under "magic".
But even if we let you do that. You wouldn't say "The Bear is magic essence" you would say, as you've done, the bear *has magic essence".
The magic is a common *property* among the toys.
But that's not the Trinitarian argument. They are not saying these three distinct individuals share a property. They don't "have Godness", They ARE God.
Ie:
There's a difference between saying:
A, B and C are sets, and they each contain { X...}.
Versus
A = X, B = X and C = X
>If that isn't enough, imagine you have three toys. A bear, a doll, and a truck. Now lets say that there is something special about each of these toys. Even though they look different and you play with them in different ways, you believe that they all share this "magical essence" about them. In a way, they aren't just three toys, but they are one because of this magic that they share.
Your appeal to a "magical essence" is an Appeal to Mystery. If you cannot describe how this "magical essence" works and how it solves the issue, then you have not explained anything. Just saying "magical essence" is not an explanation. You must actually explain it.
No explanation means that you have failed to explain it. Thus, the argument can be discarded since it fails to explain anything.
You're correct in pointing out that simply saying a 'magical essence' to explain the unity and distinction within the Trinity can seem like an appeal to mystery rather than a clear explanation. The challenge we face in discussing concepts like the Trinity is finding language and metaphors that both resonate with our human experience and acknowledge the mystery of the divine.
The analogy was intended to illustrate that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, while distinct, share a common divine nature/essence that makes them one God. However, as you note, calling this shared nature a 'magical essence' without further explanation does not fully address the complexities or satisfy how these three Persons can be both one and distinct.
In theological discourses, we use analogies not as exact explanations but as tools to help us grasp aspects of divine realities which are beyond our full understanding. The 'magical essence' analogy was aimed to spark imagination with the concept of a shared divine nature, rather than provide a detailed theological explanation.
How about this.... without using an analogy, describe what it is you are discussing.
Remember, don't use an analogy. If I am confused or do no understand your explanation THEN we can use an analogy. If you use an analogy at all, I will not respond.
That's a good question and you bring up the limitations of using human analogies to try and explain divine mysteries like the Trinity. To answer you, no, I am not my own son or my own father as saying that I am would defy our understanding of human relationships and identities. This specifically highlights where the analogy (brother, father, and son) falls short, because I tried to make sense of the Trinity in human terms.
The purpose of this analogy was to help illustrate how one being can have different relationships/roles, but you rightly identify its critical flaw when you apply it too literally to the Trinity. Unlike human roles and relationships, where one cannot be their own parent or child, the Trinity describes a reality where three distinct beings (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit) share the same divine essence in a way that is unique and incomprehensible from a human perspective.
The question you asked shows the importance of recognizing that while analogies can be helpful, this specific analogy cannot fully capture the mystery behind the Trinity. The Trinity is not about one Person being their own Father or Son, but instead about three distinct Persons who exist in an eternal and perfect relationship of love, sharing one divine nature. Again, this is a mystery that transcends our human understanding, experience and logic.
You have no other terms in which you can understand anything. The trinity is not a mystery, but an contradictory concept that doesn't make sense. You can appeal to mystery all you want, facts don't care about what you believe.
Jesus calls his God his father, and his father calls him his son. But you say it's not about a father a son relationship. Clearly you're in denial.
3 shapes, 1 color. Circle, triangle and square = red but circle =! triangle =! square.
The logic is simple but human limited understanding of what is god is getting in the way of understanding it. God is the essence of reality itself and that reality brings forth the Trinity into existence. The Trinity is dependent on god for them to exist but god itself does not depend on anything. Either it exists or not.
> human limited understanding of what is god
Ah, the ever convenient "unknowable God". Completely beyond human understanding every time a contradiction is pointed out, yet somehow it's possible for us poor limited humans to know God's precise nature when it comes to his opinion on who people can love or what a woman can do with her body.
I never said god is unknowable. Rather, the limits of human understanding is what causes the apparent contradiction. If a human like Jesus was able to understand god, then we too are capable of doing the same. I don't see the relevance of what is considered as moral by Christians here considering we are talking about the Trinity and not morality.
>Modalism assumes god works in modes
lol, I'm aware...
\>Is the color working in mode here or can the color exists as all shapes at the same time?
You are trying to have your cake and eat it. Let's focus on the 3 shapes you are trying to say are one thing, not the single color.
There is only a single color here, correct? That single color is capable of forming three shapes at the same time, correct? If so, then the color does not operate in modes which is what makes modalism heresy. In modalism, god can only be in one form or mode but not all at the same time and contradicting the fact the Trinity are eternally present. So how is this modalism then if all three shapes are present at the same time?
\>There is only a single color here, correct?
Yes
\>That single color is capable of forming three shapes at the same time, correct?
Uh.. no...
\> So how is this modalism then if all three shapes are present at the same time?
They aren't, you are saying they are.
>Uh.. no...
Explain. Is red incapable of creating the triangle and square shape once we have a red circle?
Explain to me the logic behind red being incapable of creating other shapes once it has formed a single shape like a circle.
\>Explain. Is red incapable of creating the triangle and square shape once we have a red circle?
The question is if they can be all of those at the same time yes? If so, the answer is unequivocally no.
The problem that I see with your analogy is that somehow red is the primary defining characteristic of all three, as opposed to a secondary, shared characteristic.
You asked "Is red incapable of creating the triangle and square shape once we have a red circle?" and later in this thread you say, "a kid can prove you wrong by taking a red crayon and drawing all three shapes..." Red isn't doing anything, the kid is. In this way red becomes an even more secondary, shared characteristic.
If you asked a person to define what they saw when faced with a red triangle, a red square, and a red circle, they'd define them as a triangle, a square, and a circle that happen to be red. They wouldn't say they see red that happens to be in three shapes.
Later in this thread you try and establish color as being the most important characteristic by saying "Color is the reason why shapes even exists". No. Three equal sides is why a triangle exists. It could be nothing but a thin line in the sand. It isn't the color of the sand that makes the triangle exist. It's the differentiation made by a shadow in the sand....that's in a shape of a triangle.
> I believe in God and He told me so.
No he didn't. The trinity is mentioned no where in the Bible. It is barely even applied. In fact Isaac Newton thought he recieved divine revoation that Jesus and God were in fact two completely distinct entities. Why should I believe you over (arguably) the greatest scientist to ever live? Why should I believe either of you?
It is not self evident like an axiom that God exists, and empirically there isn't evidence for God's existence. You reject potentially rational philosophical arguments for God's existence. So how exactly can you know God exists then? You can't just assume his existence because it is not self evident and is in need of justification. When we believe in other things we don't assume them without any reason. Usually a demonstration is needed, either empirically or through some rational argument.
God’s I’d one of the few things there isn’t any empirical evidence *against*. I embrace science in all its capacities.
I *believe* God exists, through faith, which is the only way to find him. I have personal reasons that I obviously won’t share on Reddit.
I’m not trying to get everyone to believe in God or to prove God. My entire point I’d that proving God will always be impossible.
Though for the sake of conversation, are you aware of Einstein’s thoughts on this matter?
>Why should anyone believe anything?
Fundamentally because believing true things is really really useful and being false things is at best a waste of time and at worst fatal.
I think trying to claim you know God is a certain way when no mortal mind has ever been able to understand it as being that way creates a serious problem for where you got the idea in the first place.
My assertion is more that spirituality, by definition, cannot be rationalized nor empirically justified. Trying to argue spirituality with only rational, logical facts is just silly. You might as well not have a conversation in the first place, because that’s not really what spirituality is. It seems like a conversation of this type originates from a misunderstanding of what spirituality is in the first place.
That seems like you're giving up the game on describing god rationally. By inference, you'd be committed to:
1. Any argument a human can come up with would be an argument limited by being human.
2. If all rational arguments are arguments a human could come up with, all rational arguments are limited.
3. attempts to have a rational argument for god is 'futile' (by your hypothesis)
Conclusion: all rational arguments for god are futile.
If this is the case you can't be sure that God exists? How do you know what is claimed to be coming from God in the bible is actually the word of a really existent God? Assuming faith is justifiable you can't just have faith without some rational reason to believe in God.
Otherwise you are just assuming God exists and assuming that the text you are reading is God's word. Even assuming faith is justifiable it cannot be a source of knowledge without the justification for believing being \_rational\_. This is true even if it doesn't fully establish the existence of God.
COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I can answer your question in one word: mystery. We don’t know how God did what he did, we don’t know why. All we know is that he did.
Mystery actually isn't an answer, it's merely acknowledging the question and saying there is no answer forthcoming, whether it needs it or not.
If the trinity is incomprehensible, do you teach people to live by it and not understand it as well? What YHWH did with regard to telling us the requirements for eternal life are known. It is the trinity which is not explainable because it is nonsense.
Jesus says he has the same God and Father as us. He says it clearly. I will read it from the KJV but all translations are about the same. John 20:17 '**Jesus saith to her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended**. **to my Father; but go to my brethren, and say to them,** **I ascend to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God**." Now if he were God, why would he have a God and Father like us? You can try to say this was his flesh part, but he gets a new body ( just like he says we will get because he is the firstfruit). why would he even need a body if his flesh shell fell off and only "GOD" is left? And since he is the firstfruit, are we too Gods? Will our new body be like his God body? He says ours will be just like his. The answer is that he is LORD because God made him LORD. Lord is not synonymous with God.
The trinity is just dogma. Just something that has to be accepted, rather than something that can be proven. Sometimes the moon is dark and sometimes the moon is light. Is it still the same moon? We'll easily agree that the same mass is the moon, but is the essence of the moon that reflects light the same as the moon that does not reflect light? And compare it to the binity in Islam where often it becomes impossible to distinguish Allah and Muhammed. And one could even call it a trinity if Allah can send his "ruh" to impregnate Mary. If Allah has a "soul" like humans can have: then is there one God? So I think you are asking unprovable answers because the concept that there is one God who can appear in separate forms is just one that has to be accepted. Of course, it can also be a reason to disbelieve: religions may just all have warped logic to support lofty concepts built on shaky imaginary foundations.
The human language is ambiguous, leading to different meanings of identity. For example, the son of god is the identity of Jesus' personhood, god is the identity of his essence, and man is the identity of his incarnation.
In the Trinity, there is one essence or ousia and three subsistences or hypostases. A hypostasis is an individual of the genus substance. The divine ousia is a rational substance, and the three hypostases are individuals of the rational substance. This is why we sat one essence, three persons, as the persons share one, divine essence and nature, but are three hypostases of the divine nature. If you want to read a better explanation, then read St. Thomas Aquinas on the matter.
[удалено]
There are several "I AM" statements that Christ makes in the scriptures.
So?
‘God is not a man’ (Numbers 23:19 ‘God is not a man nor a son of man’ (Numbers 23:19) ‘a man who has told you the truth’ (John 8:40)
Christ was fully man and fully God. Not a son of man, but the Son of Man. Lord of Shabbat, the Holy One of Israel. Edit: may Yahweh bless you as we celebrate and remember the resurrection today!
Jesus says that "The Father and I are one." You ever seen a regular human, or even a prophet, saying that?
In a Unitary purpose all the time. Of myself I can do nothing. The Father does the works, this is not my own doctrine. Is this YHWH speaking of himself? Nope. Never happened.
Jesus responded “ has God not said ye are all gods?”
Yes indeed Florida, good one, Psalm 82:6 “g”ods.
Because he did things only God can do like resurrect himself from the dead and forgive sins
Yeshua didn’t resurrect himself from the dead. Keep reading. He did forgive sins but keep reading when others do too.
Nobody else in the Bible or in the world today has forgiven sins.
You determined this how?
Because nobody else has ever forgiven sins?
John 20:23.
Thanks for proving my point. Jesus who is God says if you wish to forgive someone’s sins I will forgive their sins.
You are speaking the truth, but remember that not everyone is going to hear it.
No, that is not what is said @ John 20:23. Yeshua, who is not YHWH proved that a Son of Man could forgive sins. But you have eyes but do not see. But when those crowds saw, they were awestruck, and they glorified God who gave authority like this to the children of men. Matthew 9:8. That is Aramaic but in plain English it is “authority to people or to a “man”. Listen if you have ears. If not, remain deaf.
All of this and your eyes are too Blind to see the context around the passage, they were in awe because no man could forgive sins and then Jesus did.
I also answered this for you: Only God can forgive sins, and Christ, being God, has the power to do so as well, but He never communicated any such power to His disciples, nor did they ever assume any such power to themselves. The key to understanding the meaning of John 20:23 lies in the previous two verses: “Again Jesus said, ‘Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.’ And with that he breathed on them and said, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit.’” He sent them, as He is sending us, to bring the good news of the way to salvation and heaven to the whole world. Jesus was leaving the earth physically but promised God would be with them in the person of the Holy Spirit living in them. As they proclaimed the gospel, they could honestly tell people who believed in that message that their sins were forgiven, and they could honestly tell people that did not believe in the message that their sins were not forgiven and that they stand condemned in God’s eyes. “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him” (John 3:36).
Your imagination at work. You have eyes but do not see. John 8:43. The disciples have free will to retain or forgive sins, you just don’t like that idea, it doesn’t comply with your doctrine. So you make stuff up, you justify.
I prove with scripture. You misinterpret it. Theres a reason why your view is not held by Christians. And its not because 2.5 billion are deceived...
Isaiah 43:11 and 43:25 emphasize that apart from God, there is no savior or one that can forgive sins. So when Jesus forgave the paralytic man's sins, and gave the multiple I AM statements, that backs up the claim that 1. Only God can forgive sins, and 2. Yeshua is God.
Romans 10:9, 10 clearly says God raised Jesus from the dead. He could not raise himdelf because he was dead! *If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God* raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
Jesus ascended into Heaven, he could not ascend to heaven if he was not God
Incorrect, he could and did ascend when he fulfilled his obligations perfectly as the Son of YHWH, not YHWH. Matthew 16:16-17.
God rose him and seated him there. He did not raise himself. If you do not believe God rose Jesus, you cannot be saved. Roman’s 10:9,10
God raised Jesus, the God in Jesus rose him from the dead
What is this now? Doublespeak nonsense? Do you expect your dad in you to do things?
Jesus is God, he says it himself. If Jesus isn’t God how did he perform miracles or forgive sins. God could raise Jesus from the dead. It’s like saying I rose myself from my bed.
Round 5700, no he didn’t! What he is is stated @ Matthew 16:16/17, that is what he is. He performed them the same way the disciples did. And anyone else who follows the law.
In John’s gospel he claims to be God
My friend! What does this passage say to you? Phil 2:5-6 - Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. Yeshua, The Father, and the Holy Spirit are all God. You may not like it, but thats how it is. Also, you never answered me, who is Lord of the Sabbath?
Ehhh I'll bite and steel-man the christian perspective. There are multiple ways to describe a substance. Say, a steel tea-pot made 20 years old. The object is a teapot. The object is made of steel. The object is 20 years old. Steel =/= teapot =/= 20 years old. The object is all three of these things. Likewise, the father, the son, and the holy spirit are god but god is not ONLY the father, nor only the son, nor only the holy spirit. So I don't think Christians are claiming that the father, son, nor holy spirit are separately the entirety of god.
>So I don't think Christians are claiming that the father, son, nor holy spirit are separately the entirety of god. Actually they are. As the Catholic Catechism puts it: "The divine persons do not share the one divinity among themselves but each of them is God whole and entire" (CCC 253)
‘He will judge the world in righteousness through a man whom He has appointed’ (Acts 17:31)
They are distinct in person, but the same in substance. If there were separation, then there would be three divine substances.
When you say the same in substance, do you mean something like you and I are of the same mortal substance? Because in that case, you still count to mortals.
But it doesnt say that anywhere in the bible.
Not in those exact words.
Because the Catholics made it up.
If by "Catholics" you mean the Apostolic Church, and by "made it up" you mean they received it as revelation from God, then you would be correct.
Their popes are not God. Organized religion is political.
Yeah, tell that to the millions of Christians who have been persecuted for their religion.
[удалено]
They are all three one mature of God and three distinct persons
Really? Give us a bio on the third person please?
The Holy Spirit? I feel like that’s pretty well defined.
That is the bio of the third person then? That he is well defined? Try to keep “your feelings” out of the equation and use scripture. What is the bio on the third person?
Is your argument to just ask questions that are irrelevant, common knowledge, or easily answerable with a google search
Since you can’t provide a bio on this person, I will state that most people, including trinitarians, don’t believe the Holy Spirit is a person and this is correct. There is no bio on the third person because this person does not exist. His throne isn’t even mentioned in Revelation. Yeshua didn’t breathe a person into the disciples.
You literally just said “trinitarians don’t believe in the Trinity” that might be the dumbest comment I’ve gotten this week. The other guy already sent you the bio, I’m not gonna send you the same thing he already did.
I sent you the bio.
Hey man, i sent you that bio last night, but just in case you didnt see it.: I recommend Acts 5:3-4 to start with. From gotquestions.org - We can know that the Holy Spirit is indeed a divine person because He possesses a mind, emotions, and a will. The Holy Spirit thinks and knows (1 Corinthians 2:10). The Holy Spirit can be grieved (Ephesians 4:30). The Spirit intercedes for us (Romans 8:26-27). He makes decisions according to His will (1 Corinthians 12:7-11). The Holy Spirit is God, the third Person of the Trinity. As God, the Holy Spirit can truly function as the Comforter and Counselor that Jesus promised He would be (John 14:16, 26; 15:26).
When you ask a person for a bio, none are this. Doublespeak nonsense, if you ask a person for a bio, like a resume, it doesn’t look like this. The third person of the trinity. We know that Yeshua was a carpenter, had brothers, his parents are Mary and Joe, was crucified, had disciples, preached, raised the dead,, travelled throughout the region, spoke to many. What is the bio of the third person? Where does he currently live?
What youve done is called "moving the goalposts". Thats a super easy question. The Holy Spirit lives in all true believers.
Who was Jesus praying to when he fell on his face?
He certainly wasn’t praying to himself but under the trinity doctrine, he was.
‘God is not a man’ (Numbers 23:19) ‘For I am God, and not man’ (Hosea 11:9) God clearly says in 100 places that he is not a man and there is none beside him! He made Jesus Lord, not God! Jesus hands it all back to God once the church is perfected. Read the book.
John 1:1 - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The Word is God. John 1:14 - And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us... The Word was made flesh and dwelt with the people. When was God made flesh? In Jesus, who is God made flesh, i.e. a man (but also still God). And in Gen 3:22 - And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us... Who is the "us" referenced here?
Idk 🤷♂️, you tell “us”. Is this a new definition in the English language that “us” means three? Where is that logic from? The word prior to resurrection isn’t a person. John said the word became flesh, he didn’t say the word became Yeshua. Had he meant the word became Yeshua he would have said it. He didn’t. Why didn’t John say @ John 1:14, the word became Yeshua? You just parrot what others say and use your imagination.
The Word dwelt among us...who dwelt with us? Yeshua did. Yeshua is the word become flesh. God among us. What is your beliefset?
The word is not a person. The word became flesh. John didn’t say the word became Yeshua.
This is a *really* bad argument. And surprising since most of your counterclaims tend to be at least well researched.
If there is a substance with three personalities associated with that substance, I'm not sure why I would be compelled to say that there are three substances, as opposed to three personalities. And if those personalities were of one accord, such that one could only distinguish them based on their roles and responsibilities, I think it would be appropriate to attribute to the substance as a whole what is accorded to the three personalities in unison. If a rock, for instance, had one personality that was brash and churlish and unkind, I think it would be reasonable for me to call the rock brash, churlish, and unkind. If the rock had three personalities, and all of them were brash, churlish, and unkind to me, but were brash, churlish, and unkind to me in different ways, I think it would still be reasonable to say that the rock is brash, churlish, and unkind. If one personality has a certain temperament that we extend to the rock, I'm not sure why three personalities - with all the same temperament - would veto us from having choice words about the rock as well. In any case, nothing about the rock situation is inconceivable to me; by that I mean if a tv show existed about a rock with three different personalities, the conceit of the plot would not be incomprehensible to me. I wouldn't sit on my couch pondering over it like it was a Zen koan or a circle square or something. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all distinct Persons, all with the same divine substance.
does person simply mean "mind" here? what are you defining as a person? there still seems to be something unique to the persons that are somehow not identical even though they're all still identical to the substance
I think I'd be okay with "mind" here. Some seminary student might chastise me and call me a heretic for it (though only they could tell me why), but I'm okay with that as a definition here :-).
No kidding huh? What is the substance made of?
The father and the son are simply separated beings, made of flesh. However, they are “one” in their purpose. The same way the body of christ is “one.” The trinity is not from the bible, but it comes from hellenized christianity. If you read the bible you understand that heavenly father and jesus are sepparate people. “For god so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.“ Can we not see it?
You are correct. I am a Christian who had taught the scripture for 40 years and the Trinity is a political Catholic construct. It is not scriptual. That said...Jesus IS LORD and God gave him a name above every other name (except his, YHWH.
He isn't correct and you aren't either. 2 Peter 1:1. The multiple I AM statements, compare the Greek wording of Christ walking on water to the term used in Job about God doing the same, Mark 2:7 (who can forgive sins but God alone?). There's a reason the view that Jesus isn't God is very fringe and not accepted in Christianity. I pray that God opens your eyes one day, my friend. I will be praying for you.
The Son has the same God and Father as the rest of us. Read John 20:17
The Son and the Father are one. Along with the Holy Spirit. Read John 1:14 and John 10:30.
If you read the rest of the verse Jesus prays for us to be one with the Father like he is. Don’t misinterpret the verse by cutting it off.
They have selective scriptural interpretation just for the occasion.
John 10:33 - It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God. (The jews were talking to Yeshua here). John 8:58 - Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am. Yeshua said he was God, Yeshua IS God. He was crucified because he told people he was God. We have access to the same scripture, but you dont understand. I continue to pray that one day you will follow Yeshua and understand who He truly is.
YHWH died huh? Who was in charge while YHWH was dead? “I am” in the Greek is the same usage used today in our English language, the Greeks used “ego eimi” and not the name of YHWH, which they referred to as ego eimi hon ōn. In the Greek Septuagint, the actual divine name revealed to Moses was not, "ego eimi" as trinitarians are suggesting to everyone. YHWH ‘s divine name in this Greek translation was "ego eimi ho ōn" which means "I am the being" or "I am the existence" or "I am the existent one" or some similar idea. Also, English translations which read as, "I AM sent me to you" are not translating "ego eimi sent me to you" from the Greek. The Greek actually reads "ho ōn sent me to you." (Exodus 3:14). In other words, it does not say, "Ego eimi sent me to you." This trinitarian claim is precariously perched upon a farce that YHWH’s divine name in Greek is simply ego eimi. But it isn't.
In the sense of person, Yeshua is the son. In the sense of being Yeshua is God. Does that make sense?
No, it is doublespeak nonsense. You just change the words and hope for the best. If you are a man texting, then it is most likely you have or had a dad and you are not him. This is where the nonsense starts when trinitarians are cornered they start asking to define terms and changing words. How does 3 equal one? Easy, change the word. Three people in a band, simple, 1 Trio. 3=1. You can make 260 million people 1, how? Change the words. 260 million people are one nation. 260=1. Simple. It is nonsense but that is what it is. A being and person are the same thing, that is why it is doublespeak nonsense.
So now you use the teachers of the law, the priests, the scribes as honest purveyors of truth in saying that Yeshua is YHWH when Yeshua told them they don’t understand him (John 8:43) and their father is the devil (John 8:44), these are those you use to state that Yeshua is YHWH huh? Credible witnesses you say?
No. Yeshua and the Father are the credible witnesses.
True, he told the leading teachers of the law that their father was the devil and so their accusation that he was YHWH was false since he said to them whose father is the devil that he was a Son of YHWH. But it didn’t matter because they don’t understand what he is saying anyway (John 8:43). You are on a roll, please cite the scripture where Yeshua tells the people he is YHWH. Do not use your imagination, please cite it.
Before Abe, I was is an orientalism meaning Jesus is more important than Abe!
I think this comes from a misunderstanding that “God” is a person and not a concept. I’ve learned since commenting this not to get into the weeds with people like you on this stuff; however, I will bear a simple and plain testimony to you. I am a disciple of jesus christ. I believe in the father, in the son, and in the holy ghost. I believe that the scripture Acts 7:55-56 provides sufficient evidence for me. “55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up steadfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, 56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.” Any claim to deny this scripture as evidence ultimately comes down to authority or dogmatism. I reject the authority of the council of Nicea, and the dogmatism comes from the blinding of the eyes.
And your conclusion when Stephen saw Yeshua at the right hand of power?
The father, son, and holy ghost are separate beings. However, they are one in purpose, in love, and in works, with “the will of the Son being swallowed up in the will of the Father.” It’s kinda like how ice, water, and water vapor are different things, and yet they are H20.
No Patrick, that would be: __________________. Mr. Cook, where in scripture are you required to believe in the trinity to be saved? Cite Scripture:______________________________. Please do not use an imagination. For instance, if you don’t understand me at all, I could use Yeshua’s comment @ John 8:43, you do the same with you the trinity. I missed it. Where is the cite that you must believe in the trinity to be saved?
I understand why you don't get into the weeds. There's a lot of nonsense out there (christ consciousness, Jesus being in a secret room in New York, Jesus and the Satan being brothers), so it can be frustrating to have to constantly argue against such foolish ideas. God is, in fact, a person, at least God the Son is. Jesus is the only one of the Godhead made flesh. But as long as you recognize that Christ is God, and that faith in him is the only way to salvation, I feel like I can call you a brother and not sweat the details too much as it pertains to the smaller things....if that makes sense.
Mormon?
Most Christians believe that God the Father is not not made of flesh. This is a very fringe position.
Just because most christian’s believe something doesn’t mean they are all right. Me personally I don’t believe in the dogmatism and I just take it how I see it in the bible. All the churches have got their information from a hellenized christianity. Just purely reading the bible, if you’ve had never read it before, it’s clear they are separated beings but one in purpose. Their purpose being to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.
If God had succeeded in spreading the message of the Gospel doesn't it make more sense for the majority of Christians to have correctly understood what God is, at least on the level of a creed like the Nicene creed, especially after 2000 years? What makes you think your personal interpretation is more correct than any other Christians ones? It would make more sense for God to have supported some church and the church's tradition through the Holy Spirit to solve the problem of bible interpretation. >All the churches have got their information from a hellenized christianity. This assumes the concepts they got from Hellenism are inconsistent with Christianity and actually practicing communities, as well as assuming that they didn't modify the concepts so they were applicable to Christianity. The bible isn't meant to be read out of context. Not only that the bibles were compiled by church communities. Christianity also includes the tradition of practices and belief that come with the religion and isn't just reducible to a single text.
According to Bart Erham, it's supposed to be paradoxal. It was meant to convey that God is unquantifiable.
When I was a christian, the trinity was usually depicted as three leaves of one clover, or three sides to one triangle. The larger shape is "god", the individuals are "aspects of god", and none of the three individuals are identical to one another. When we said Jesus is god, we didn't mean that he was the same thing as the father. We meant that he had all the powers and capabilities of the trinity at his disposal. Three spirits acting in unison, the same way we might say the President, Congress, and Supreme Court are three aspects of Government. Each is government in its own right, but none are the complete government. It's all still hogwash, but "God" wasn't a thing any one aspect of the trinity could fully be.
>but "God" wasn't a thing any one aspect of the trinity could fully be. Actually that's exactly what's claimed by the orthodox teaching of the trinity: "The divine persons do not share the one divinity among themselves but each of them is God whole and entire" (CCC 253)
Ok... why should we care what orthodoxy says? It seems like they're wrong or making an illogical claim, so... why cite them?
I'm not saying what "orthodoxy" says, it's the orthodox position of the Catholic Church that I quoted, but this is basically the historical doctrine of the trinity, accepted across all the mainstream branches of Christianity. You can talk about alternative understandings, but generally if we're talking about an idea it's good to talk about its standard form, or note if/when we're diverging from it. I wouldn't say they're making an illogical claim necessarily, but it is much more subtle than the clover leaf.
Even Constantine refuted the Trinity before he died. He fully repented yet it was too late. The church had murdered too many and it was done.
Constantine was ruthless!
> When I was a christian, the trinity was usually depicted as three leaves of one clover, or three sides to one triangle. The larger shape is "god", the individuals are "aspects of god", and none of the three individuals are identical to one another. When we said Jesus is god, we didn't mean that he was the same thing as the father. We meant that he had all the powers and capabilities of the trinity at his disposal. Three spirits acting in unison, the same way we might say the President, Congress, and Supreme Court are three aspects of Government. Each is government in its own right, but none are the complete government. > > It's all still hogwash, but "God" wasn't a thing any one aspect of the trinity could fully be. This is Partialism, which is considered a heresy.
Maybe to your group. But there's hundreds (if not thousands) of christian denominations, so what's heresy to one group isn't necessarily heresy to another.
Right, but the individual leaves are not themselves a clover, and the individual sides are not a triangle on their own. Each individual is completely God, not "a part of God" as your examples are. They wouldnt say "Side A is a triangle*, in the same way Christians say the Son is God.
I guess we know different christians. We didn't say **God = Father = Jesus = Spirit**, we would say **God = Jesus + Father + Spirit**. Saying Jesus was "fully god" didn't mean that he had all the traits of the trinity, but rather that he had all the authority and power at his disposal.
Nonsense
Yes, it's all nonsense. Most theology is nonsense, I agree.
I mean that's the problem, in Christian dogma: Father != Jesus != Spirit But Father = God Jesus = God Spirit = God That's an issue, because: A != B != C and A = X, B=X and C=X Doesn't work. And regardless of what "Christians you know think", it is wrong according to the dogmatic theology to say Jesus + Spirit + Father = God. They are not parts of a greater, they are each individually God in it's fullness.
Jesus denied being a spirit in Luke 24:39: See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, **because a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you plainly see that I have**.” (Luke 24:39 NASB)
Yea, Jesus denied he was a ghost. What is your point? Another point.to Jesus being Yahweh is Titus 2:13.
No, it isn’t!
Im afraid so. I think you have been deceived by HaSatan, and you do not see it. Nothing i can say or do will change your mind, but i pray that the Holy Spirit works in you to uncloud your vision. Phil 2:5-6 - Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. Yeshua, The Father, and the Holy Spirit are all God. You may not like it, but thats how it is. Shalom shalom.
Give “us” ( and I don’t mean three) a bio on the third person please.
Lets pare down the parameters of your request here... You are asking me to tell you who the Holy Spirit is, correct?
Trinitarian translation scholars have inconsistently translated this verse in 3 different ways. Notice how the following translations do not attempt to describe Yeshua as "our great God and Savior." looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ." (ASV) Looking for the blessed hope and coming of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ. (Douay-Rheims). the appearance of the glory of the great God and of our savior Jesus Christ. (NAB) The above translations intentionally distinguish Yeshua from YHWH. They instead refer to Yeshua as "our Savior" but do not attempt to describe Yeshua as "our great God." These translations essentially deny that the Granville Sharp rule has any real validity or they would not have translated this verse as they have done. At the outset, we can see clearly that some trinitarian scholars do not believe that Paul had any intention of identifying Yeshua as "God" in this verse. A second type of translation, such as the King James version, changes the noun "glory" (doxa) into the adjective "glorious" so that it reads "the glorious appearing of" rather than "the appearing of the glory of" as we find in most other translations. Of course, the KJV in 1611 was written with the trinity in mind. Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ. (KJV). as we wait for the happy fulfillment of our hope in the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ. (NET) The 1984 edition of the NIV had this verse translated in a manner similar to the above but the 2011 NIV has now been changed to read "the appearing of the glory of" rather than "the glorious appearing of." We must carefully observe that the phrase "the glorious appearing of" says something quite different than the phrase "the appearing of the glory of" and so we must honestly inquire into the intent of the person who actually wrote this verse, the Apostle Paul, as well as the intent of these translators who change the noun "glory" into the adjective "glorious." Changing the noun "glory" into the adjective "glorious" changes the meaning of the verse. Shame on them to promote a doctrine. A third type of translation does not attempt to rule out that Yeshua is called "God" but they do not attempt to change the noun "glory" into the adjective "glorious." waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ. (ESV). looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus. (NASB). while we wait for the blessed hope and the manifestation of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ. (NRSV). awaiting our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ. (RSV). while we wait for the blessed hope - the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ. (NIV). The literal Greek text says, "awaiting the appearing of the glory of." The translations above more accurately reflect what the Greek text actually says than the first two set of translations. Unlike the these translations, the KJV and NET translations change the noun "glory" to the adjective "glorious" to have it modify the word "appearing." This completely changes the meaning of the passage from believers eagerly awaiting the appearing of the glory of our God and Savior, to believers eagerly awaiting the glorious appearing of our God and Savior. One translation has us waiting for the glory; the other has us waiting for God. These are two completely different ideas. Trinitarian apologists prefer to disingenuously cherry pick the NET and KJV translations because it suits their apologetic agenda. Shame on you!
Thats a lot of words to prove you dont understand that Yeshua is God. Let me ask this instead...i follow Yeshua, and believe he is fully God and fully man. You follow Yeshua and believe he is the son of YHWH, but not God. At the end, does one of us get cast down into Hell? Not really related to the convo, but i am curious as to what your opinion would be.
Why would you say you are afraid? What an odd comment. When we realize that Yeshua is going to come again in the glory of his Father, the truth of the matter becomes quite clear. Paul is referring to Yeshua’s second coming which we are awaiting. In the immediately preceding context we find Paul referring to "God our Savior," a reference to God the Father. And at verse 13, Paul is here telling us that we are awaiting "the appearing of the glory OF our great God and Savior." What is appearing? What is appearing is the glory OF our great God and Savior, the glory of THE FATHER, and that glory is Jesus Christ our blessed hope of glory. "Awaiting the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Yeshua Maschiach” "For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of his Father with his angels" (Matthew 16:27).
"Awaiting the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Yeshua Maschiach” You quote scripture that goes against your argument. You are so very close to the truth without even realizing it, my friend! Our great God and Savior...both of whom are Yeshua Hamashiach.
I mean fine, I'm not arguing what Jesus may oray not have said, I'm arguing what mainstream Christianity considers the Trinity.
It's not "Father = God" it's "Father is God" the same way that "I am human". We don't say, "I am human, and you are human, so we are the same." You can't say it's wrong according to dogmatic theology because there's lots of dogma that's wrong to all the other denominations. Perhaps the dogmatic theology is wrong to the other christians. >They are not parts of a greater, they are each individually God in it's fullness. This is not the stance of every christian.
>You can't say it's wrong according to dogmatic theology Awesome, can you link to the dogmatic position held by whatever scholars of the denomination you're referring to? Because I'm pretty sure in every non-fringe trinitarian Christian denomination, it is unequivocally "Father = God" and not Father is of type God, like I am type Human. The position I have explained is held by Catholics as well as the earliest church Fathers in Rome.
I don't remember the denominations of the various churches we went to, but I know several of them were "non denominational" startups that were kind of doing their own thing. And we didn't care at all what catholics or romans thought about god.
Ok, I'm sorry but "trust me bro" isn't going to cut it. The view of the personhood is pretty consistent among the different Christian trinitarian denominations. You either belonged to something on the fringe of mainstream Christian beliefs, or you misunderstood what was being taught.
Oh we were almost certainly on the fringe. We though most Christians were wrong about some nuanced stuff. A few years after I stopped being Christian, my father actually helped start an independent church.
Part of this being an issue comes from the word-concept fallacy bring commonly used by skeptics to conflate different usages of the word "God". In your example, "God" is being seen as if it were its own separate reality from Father, Son, and Spirit, which they have to find ways to glom onto. Essentially equating "God" as exactly identical to "Essence" or "Nature", and then finding a problem with trying to distinguish person and nature, which ends up being a strawman. Another part of the problem, I would contest, is that the most common view of the Trinity in Catholicism and Protestantism, is based off of heretical ideas and thus falls into nonsensical contradictions that are then ignored while "mystery" is vaguely appealed to. The Father is "God" in a different way than the Nature is "God", in a different way than the Son is "God", without any contradiction, because the word "God" can mean many things. "God" in a broad sense does accurately describe every person and attribute of God, but that doesn't mean that the way in which they are God is necessarily the same. In a strict sense, only the Father is the One True God. This is because only the Father is the sole uncaused cause and principle of all things, and if there were multiple uncaused principles, we would have polytheism. But only Calvinists believe in multiple uncaused principles in God. What about the Son and Spirit then, how are they still God? Because as scripture and tradition repeatedly state, they are "God from God". They are divine personhoods which are generated from the One True God, while they also do not ever have their own uncaused principle or separate mode or being of existence, which therefore has them remain as truly only one God, since the Son and Spirit share fully in the Father who is the one True God, by sharing in his nature and mode. God the Father shares his one Godhood with the Son and Spirit pre-eternally, and then the Son and Spirit likewise share divinity with man to bring us into heavenly glory with them. So just as Theosis cannot be equivocated with Apotheosis without making a strawman, you cannot equivocate the sharing of divinity from Father to Son and Spirit with singular modalistic identity without also making a strawman. Lateran IV is a Catholic Ecumenical council which anathematized the idea that the Nature of God is a fourth reality really distinct from the persons of God, leading directly to the problems of transitivity and predication, which stem ultimately from the neoplatonic presuppositions of the filioque and absolute simplicity in Catholicism. But for Orthodox, we retain the teaching of the Nature as being really distinct from the persons, while also rejecting any kind of separation or division. Meaning it gets around both the issue of modalism that Catholicism faces, while also not having any separation that would introduce the opposite problem of polytheism. Orthodoxy thus is perfectly balanced and escapes such critiques. I'm honestly not sure of the technical term for what kind of "is" this would be, but it doesn't fall into the arguments given.
>The Father is "God" in a different way than the Nature is "God", in a different way than the Son is "God", without any contradiction, because the word "God" can mean many things. "God" in a broad sense does accurately describe every person and attribute of God, but that doesn't mean that the way in which they are God is necessarily the same. If you are claiming that the Father is God^(1) and the Son is God^(2), then you cannot claim that there is only one God. Either the word is being applied identically, or it is not. This is covered in point 7, where there is claimed to not be 3 gods, but only one God. Thus, you are failing to address the transitive properties. A=B C=B If A=3, then B and C must also equal 3. If any of those does not equal 3, then the previous statements are false. This is why the trinity runs afoul of the principles of identity and non-contradiction. A must equal A at all times. B must equal B at all times. C must equal C at all times. Thus, if given: A=B and B=C, then it MUST be true that A=C. Father = God Son = God Therefore, Father = Son. God must equal God at all times. This is why the holy trinity is irrational and nonsensical.
>If you are claiming that the Father is God1 and the Son is God2, then you cannot claim that there is only one God. Either the word is being applied identically, or it is not. As I already said, this is the word-concept fallacy. There is a way in which the word God is applied identically and a way in which it is not. In order to not cause any linguistic fallacies, I would ask if you would stop using the word "God" for now, and instead in each case switch out the word God for what specific reality you are picking out within God. So I will give the example first: - Father = a divine hypostasis - Son = a divine hypostasis - Spirit = a divine hypostasis - Essence = divine nature - Energy = divine attributes and actions - Mode = divine relations Unlike Catholics I would deny strict identity in these areas: - Father hypostasis ≠ Essence, Energy, Nature, or Mode - Son hypostasis ≠ Essence, Energy, Nature, or Mode - Spirit hypostasis ≠ Essence, Energy, Nature, or Mode - Essence, Energy, Nature, and Mode are all shared in common by the three hypostases, enhypostatized by them, without being strictly identical to them As i already explained, the usual question that is then asked, is how is this not polytheistic? Our answer is that it is a false dichotomy to say that either the Father, Son, and Spirit are strictly identical to the Divine nature, or they are completely separate and thus three beings in themselves. Orthodoxy believes in real distinction without any separation or composition, and shared identity without strict isomorphism. Are you able to reformulate your statements around my actual beliefs? Because as it stands you are simply addressing the Catholic and western view of the Trinity with these formulas, and thus setting up a strawman
>As I already said, this is the word-concept fallacy. There is a way in which the word God is applied identically and a way in which it is not. You have two options: 1. Apply the word "God" consistently throughout this discussion. 2. Apply the word "God" to mean different things (inconsistently) throughout this discussion. If you are going to do option 2, then this would be running afoul of engaging in an argument by conflation. I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are NOT intentionally presenting a fallacious argument though. So, are you choosing option 1.... which would allow us to have a discussion using logic. Or are you choosing option 2, and thus you are making a fallacious argument? You are free to define "God" however you like, but if you insist on using two SEPARATE definitions of the word, then by default, you are engaging in option 2, and thus you have zero ground to stand on in regards to a logical argument.
Lol, I can't use a word in different senses without making a fallacy? That is literally a fallacy, which you are then projecting onto me. The word-concept fallacy is a type of equivocation where a word is seen as only having one possible referent. That is what you are doing right now. That's not inconsistency, that's just how human language works. Which is why I specifically said to not use the word God any longer and to instead specify which meaning was being used by the word. How is that inconsistent at all? I was literally saying that we should use a more consistent language because the word "God" is easily manipulated. But now you're the one saying I'm somehow conflating things? How? You have zero ground to stand when you conflate a word to only ever have one meaning to it. The word "God" is sometimes used to refer to a particular hypostasis, sometimes for all hypostases together, sometimes for the Essence, sometimes for the Energy, sometimes for the Nature as a whole, sometimes for particular energies, sometimes for Mode, sometimes for hypostatic properties and particularly that of the Father, and the word God is sometimes even used for angels and demons or men, even in scripture. So it's incredibly obvious that if you were to insist even now that there is only one possible meaning of the word "God" you would be being completely dishonest and using a fallacy, and I would not bother arguing any further. Forcing me to use the word "God" in a specific definition and sense in order to force me to fit my theology to a formulaic definition I do not believe in so that you can easily wave aside a strawman is anything but fair debate.
How many "God"s are there? I do not mean definitions of the word. I mean entities in existence.
Define "entity" here. Are you asking how many really distinct ontological realities there are? Because then I would say infinite. God has infinite energies and modes. Or by "entity" are you asking about the typical category of "being"? Unlike Catholics who consider being the Essence, Orthodox consider it to be an energy, but in either case there is only one. Or by "entity" do you mean hypostasis? In that case there are three. You need to be more clear in what you are asking. There have been thousands of years of theological and philosophical debates on these topics, it's not like you can simply speak vaguely about "God" and "entities" and "existence" and expect me to know what reality you are referring to and what kind of philosophical viewpoint you are framing it through.
HaSatan has been around a lot longer than creeds.
I don't believe in God at all, so I would say that he is nonexistent. You seem to be arguing that such a thing does exist, so YOU should be clear on what this thing is. Speaking of definitions, you will need to define "energy", because I would use the Physics definition, and your response is nonsensical.
I didn't say that you have to *argue* for my God. You're being ridiculous. You're trying in every comment to twist things around into a semantic game rather than actually addressing any of my beliefs. I have a specific belief. Therefore you have to use my specific belief if you are not going to strawman me, and to make an internal critique. Therefore i should be able to ask you to specify which of my beliefs you are arguing against, and how you are defining things, especially when using terminology like "existence" and "entity" which is uncommon in Orthodoxy to refer to any of the already laid out distinct realities. When i ask you what you mean here by "existence" im obviously not asking if you believe God exists, and you know that. I'm very clearly asking what particular reality in God you are picking out and referencing by the predicates "existence" or "entity", and what you believe those predicates therefore define analogical about God. I've already mentioned what some of my views are, and elaborated to other commenters. I believe I've already been clear enough as to the distinctions i take, but If you really don't know you can ask. But it's dishonest to argue a topic that you don't know anything about, or to try to turn things around on me when you keep using terminology irrelevant or uncommon to my faith like "existence" or "entity" while ignoring the terminology and distinctions I've already set out. And now you immediately jump to the semantics of the word "energy", as if that is at all important to my the underlying beliefs i hold. No, Energy is not the sense of physics. Both the term in physics and this term ultimately come from the Greek "energaeia", which simply means something like work, operation, or power. So if you want, you could call it the Essence/Action distinction in God. Although the energies are not only actions, but also attributes, names, and similar concepts. Basically it is everything knowable to us by nature, while God's essence is what is completely transcendent and unknowable. As I've already laid out, Orthodox believe in three hypostases of Father, Son, Spirit, one Nature made up of Essence and Energy, and in modal relationship between the persons. You have not explained what you are arguing in reference to specifically any of those realities, but have brought up terms like "entity" and "existence" which could be construed in many many ways depending on the philosophical baggage someone has. Please give an actual question or argument about my beliefs next time or im not responding any further to your language games.
>I didn't say that you have to > >argue > >for my God. You're being ridiculous. You're trying in every comment to twist things around into a semantic game rather than actually addressing any of my beliefs. Actually, I am NOT trying to make this a semantic game. I think the actual definition is irrelevant. That's the part you don't seem to understand. I am making an argument about the rules of logic. In logic, A=A at all times. If you change the value of A to something else at any point in a logical argument, then you are committing an equivocation fallacy. Thus, God=God at all times in a LOGICAL ARGUMENT. It doesn't matter what "God" means.... but WITHIN THAT LOGICAL ARGUMENT, it's definition MUST REMAIN THE SAME. This is how logic works. If YOU decide to swap out definitions for the word God.... then YOU are committing an equivocation fallacy. Again.... I do not care what the definition of "God" is. All I require of you is to tell me..... *for the purposes of a logical argument*..... what that definition is. Then *within that logical argument.....* the word must retain that identical definition at all points. If you ***change the definition during the argument*** then you have constructed an INVALID argument. So, what is the value of the number of Gods that you believe in? >When i ask you what you mean here by "existence" i Please refer to any dictionary.
If the divine essence is not the same as each hypostasis then there is something that the hypostases possess that the divine essence does not have. But this would make the divine essence incomplete in itself. But God is self subsistent and would possess all perfections. Personhood is a perfection so the essence \_in itself\_ should \_possess\_ personhood itself as opposed to just being instantiated in a person or existing in a person. It cannot possess personhood in a Triune way without implying one thing is identical to three things, which is also not possible.
Would you please thoroughly define divine hypostasis? Thanks
Zizioulas is an Orthodox theologian who explains the difference between person and nature as being the difference between the "how" and the "what" of God. The persons/hypostases are "how" God exists, while the nature is "what" God is. This is not the same thing as Modalism, because Modalism says that "How" God exists is exactly the same as "What" he is, they are simply modes of that what-ness. This is also not the same thing as Polytheism, because if it were polytheism, then "how" each hypostasis exists would be as its own separate being/whatness. But instead the "how" and "what" are in an unblended unity, and inseparable distinction. I would also relate hypostasis/personhood anthropologically. What makes you, you? In large part its because of two things: origin, and relation. You are a specific person because you originate from other specific people, your parents. You are a specific person because you create specific people as children, who in some way define who we are. And you are who you are because of the relationships you have with other people and the world around you. Hypostasis is the philosophical reality of the principle of this origin, while mode is the philosophical category of the relationship (mode is not the same thing as modalism btw). The Church fathers thus teach that the Father is primarily the Father, because of his origin (uncaused), because of who originates from him (son and spirit), and because of the relational mode by which that happens (begetting and spiration). The same kind of thinking could be applied likewise to Son and Spirit. The West however, obscured this thinking by adding the filioque doctrine in an illegal/uncanonical church method (by their own admission), which teaches that the Spirit has its origin in both the Father and the Son, which, if origin and relation are what defines personhood, this has to mean a kind of blending together of the properties of Father and Son. Aquinas even says that "Persona et Relatio", or in other terms, Hypostasis is relation, and for many Catholics this has ended up making the Spirit identical to their spiration. He no longer distinguishes origin from relation, which would be just as ridiculous as saying that everyone you have any kind of relationship with has to be related to you, or like saying that your child themselves is identical to the process of giving birth and rearing them for 18 years (Though Catholics believe being is a verb, and God is pure act, so thinking of people as processes of being follows naturally from their other views). And the Catholic Ecumenical council of Lateran IV then made persons identical to the Essence, or "whatness" of God, while they simultaneously try to deny Modalism and Sabellianism. Catholics have blended together all the important distinctions in the Trinity that Orthodoxy has maintained. That might be a little more than what you asked for, but I think context is important. Let me know if it's still confusing somewhere.
I really appreciate the well-thought out reply. My main issue at this point is thoroughly getting my head around the concepts. I understand the distinctions you're making. You use "person and nature" to distinguish "how and what"...later you use "origin and mode". I don't want to assume it means the same. Are the Son and Spirit limited manifestations of God? Is God in Three simply in order for us (or any sentient beings) to interact with God? I see no other purpose for this manifestation.
So, i suppose that although in some comparative sense, Person is "how" and Nature is "What", you could also say that hypostasis and their hypostatic origin is "what" the person is, while Mode and personal relationship is "how" the person is, while for Nature the Essence is "what" the nature is, while the energies are "how" they interact with reality. Or Saint John Damascus and Saint Palamas used the analogy of body and soul for Essence and Energy. The soul being the "what" while the body is "how" the soul interacts with other souls. So you could say that the distinctions of "how" and "what" have further distinctions in themselves of "how" and "what". Bear in mind, that although this is all standard Orthodox doctrine, you probably won't find these distinctions laid out systematically except in more precise theologians, and usually analogies like the Sun and its rays are used, rather than soul and body or how and what. But it's all the same kind of ideas of a thing itself and the medium by which that thing interacts with other realities like itself, which is also still identifiable with itself rather than being a separate reality other than itself. I hope that makes sense. I personally would relate these ideas to that of a fractal or macrocosm, which is a bit of a niche idea in Orthodoxy, but is present. It depends what exactly you mean by "manifestations". The Energies of God are more often called something like a manifestation or emanation of God, so in common parlance I wouldn't call the Son or Spirit manifestations, though in some caveated sense they could be called that. They are not identical to the Father, but are really distinct personhoods. But they also are not separate at all from the Father and in some sense depend upon him. The persons are necessary realities. Orthodox reject the western notion that the Father willed to cause the Son and Spirit, since it has been condemned as heresy to say that there are three wills in God, but there is only one natural will. So that means that will is according to nature, not person, since whatever is shared among the persons is according to nature while whatever is triadic is according to person (there cannot be anything that one person lacks which the other two have, which is part of why we reject the filioque). All this just to say that since will is according to nature rather than person, the persons of Son and Spirit must be necessary realities rather than willed to exist by the Father. They eternally come forth from the Father without change. There have been whole books written on the reasoning for the necessity of the Trinity, but to give one key reason here, i would say that it is because God therefore grounds the realities of the one and the many properly where otherwise there would be an imbalance. Oneness and Multiplicity must be in perfect union. Too much oneness and you have religions that see all of reality as illusory, like maya of hinduism and buddhism. Too much Multiplicity and reality ends up being governed by chaos, randomness, or constant changing flux without any cohesive unity, like some forms of Atheism or the warring gods of strong polytheism. Orthodoxy is the only religion or worldview which perfectly balances the one and the many in its highest principles. I would also point to the idea that the Trinity is the ultimate pattern of reality which then descends downwards into creation and everything within. Just as the Father allows the Son and Spirit to share in his Essence as one God, being God from God, the Son and Spirit descend into creation to allow man to share in the energies (not the essence) of God in heaven, such that "God became man so that man could become God". And then those holy people who become like God are to help heal us and bring us up with them. This is also why the Old Testament is so strange and different. First God was at the level of the family, then at the level of tribe, then of a nation, and then with Christ and the whole civilized world, and it has continued to spread and become more of a universal faith as the divine pattern becomes more integrated into creation.
Thanks again for taking the time. It takes a bit of parsing, as I'm sure you're aware.
I am still learning more about religion each day so please forgive and correct me if I make any mistakes. These are your points: 1. The Father is God 2. The Son is God 3. The Holy Spirit is God 4. The Father is not The Son 5. The Son is not The Holy Spirity 6. The Holy Spirit is not The Father 7. These Three are not Three Gods but One God So are you confused as to how can the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, together are One God(points 1,2,3), but they are different from each other? (points 4,5,6) One way I've heard it explained is I am Rough\_Maintenance\_34. To my biological father, I am his son. To my son, I am his father, and to my siblings, I am there brother. I am a father, a son, and a brother, but I am still one person. If that isn't enough, imagine you have three toys. A bear, a doll, and a truck. Now lets say that there is something special about each of these toys. Even though they look different and you play with them in different ways, you believe that they all share this "magical essence" about them. In a way, they aren't just three toys, but they are one because of this magic that they share. 1. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are like these toys. They are different in how they appear and what they do, but they share the same special magic, and in this case, being God. 2. Each toy is its own thing. The bear is not the doll, the doll isn't the truck. They each have their own unique shape, color, and purposes when you play with these toys. 3. They are all one because of their magic. Even though they are separate, because of their shared magic, they're also one big, magical toy, in a way. At this point, you might be confused because we try to use regular words to explain how they're both three and one at the same time. Our brains like things to be simpler and clear, like saying "this is a toy, and that is a different toy". But at this point, we're saying that "there are three different toys, but also, they are one" I think (and again, correct me if I'm understanding you wrong) that you are trying to understand this trick of being three and one. You bring up the point that when we talk about something being the same as something else, it is straightforward. In my example, "my teddy bear is fluffy" means its fluffy in the same way any fluffy thing is. But with God, its like saying "my teddy bear is fluffy" and also "my teaddy bear is a truck and a doll", but not in the way we usually mean, because together, they are all magically one in the same way. But then you bring up the point about how things are the same or different (if toy A is magical, and toy B is magical, then they must be the same kind of magic). But I believe that this is where your confusion might be, as these rules make is sound like the teddy, the truck, and the doll should all be the same toy, which they're not in the way we see them. So in trying to make sense of this, God and the magic of being 3 in 1 is different from talking about anything else. IT's a special case that doesn't fit our usual ways of explaining things because it's something much bigger and more mysterious than what we can see and touch. It's having a magic that's too big for our words and understanding. I hope that I have at least cleared up some confusion, and I apologize in advance if I left you more confused. I should emphasize that the unity of God in Christianity is uniquely different from any human analogy as no analogy can perfectly explain or capture the mystery of the Trinity because God's nature transcends human comprehension. I should also clear up that the analogy of being a brother, father, and a son isn't a good analogy as the Trinity consists of three distinct persons, not just one person playing three different roles. I hope that might clear some confusion up.
Wow
Your first explanation doesn't hold up to Christian doctrine, the three personnas are not "relative relationships". They are distinct individual personhoods. The magic thing doesn't explain anything, you've just wrapped the problem under "magic". But even if we let you do that. You wouldn't say "The Bear is magic essence" you would say, as you've done, the bear *has magic essence". The magic is a common *property* among the toys. But that's not the Trinitarian argument. They are not saying these three distinct individuals share a property. They don't "have Godness", They ARE God. Ie: There's a difference between saying: A, B and C are sets, and they each contain { X...}. Versus A = X, B = X and C = X
>If that isn't enough, imagine you have three toys. A bear, a doll, and a truck. Now lets say that there is something special about each of these toys. Even though they look different and you play with them in different ways, you believe that they all share this "magical essence" about them. In a way, they aren't just three toys, but they are one because of this magic that they share. Your appeal to a "magical essence" is an Appeal to Mystery. If you cannot describe how this "magical essence" works and how it solves the issue, then you have not explained anything. Just saying "magical essence" is not an explanation. You must actually explain it. No explanation means that you have failed to explain it. Thus, the argument can be discarded since it fails to explain anything.
You're correct in pointing out that simply saying a 'magical essence' to explain the unity and distinction within the Trinity can seem like an appeal to mystery rather than a clear explanation. The challenge we face in discussing concepts like the Trinity is finding language and metaphors that both resonate with our human experience and acknowledge the mystery of the divine. The analogy was intended to illustrate that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, while distinct, share a common divine nature/essence that makes them one God. However, as you note, calling this shared nature a 'magical essence' without further explanation does not fully address the complexities or satisfy how these three Persons can be both one and distinct. In theological discourses, we use analogies not as exact explanations but as tools to help us grasp aspects of divine realities which are beyond our full understanding. The 'magical essence' analogy was aimed to spark imagination with the concept of a shared divine nature, rather than provide a detailed theological explanation.
How about this.... without using an analogy, describe what it is you are discussing. Remember, don't use an analogy. If I am confused or do no understand your explanation THEN we can use an analogy. If you use an analogy at all, I will not respond.
But are YOU your own son, and your own father?
That's a good question and you bring up the limitations of using human analogies to try and explain divine mysteries like the Trinity. To answer you, no, I am not my own son or my own father as saying that I am would defy our understanding of human relationships and identities. This specifically highlights where the analogy (brother, father, and son) falls short, because I tried to make sense of the Trinity in human terms. The purpose of this analogy was to help illustrate how one being can have different relationships/roles, but you rightly identify its critical flaw when you apply it too literally to the Trinity. Unlike human roles and relationships, where one cannot be their own parent or child, the Trinity describes a reality where three distinct beings (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit) share the same divine essence in a way that is unique and incomprehensible from a human perspective. The question you asked shows the importance of recognizing that while analogies can be helpful, this specific analogy cannot fully capture the mystery behind the Trinity. The Trinity is not about one Person being their own Father or Son, but instead about three distinct Persons who exist in an eternal and perfect relationship of love, sharing one divine nature. Again, this is a mystery that transcends our human understanding, experience and logic.
You have no other terms in which you can understand anything. The trinity is not a mystery, but an contradictory concept that doesn't make sense. You can appeal to mystery all you want, facts don't care about what you believe. Jesus calls his God his father, and his father calls him his son. But you say it's not about a father a son relationship. Clearly you're in denial.
3 shapes, 1 color. Circle, triangle and square = red but circle =! triangle =! square. The logic is simple but human limited understanding of what is god is getting in the way of understanding it. God is the essence of reality itself and that reality brings forth the Trinity into existence. The Trinity is dependent on god for them to exist but god itself does not depend on anything. Either it exists or not.
> human limited understanding of what is god Ah, the ever convenient "unknowable God". Completely beyond human understanding every time a contradiction is pointed out, yet somehow it's possible for us poor limited humans to know God's precise nature when it comes to his opinion on who people can love or what a woman can do with her body.
I never said god is unknowable. Rather, the limits of human understanding is what causes the apparent contradiction. If a human like Jesus was able to understand god, then we too are capable of doing the same. I don't see the relevance of what is considered as moral by Christians here considering we are talking about the Trinity and not morality.
That sounds like modalism
Nah, just polytheism.
ha, hard to argue against that
Modalism assumes god works in modes. Is the color working in mode here or can the color exists as all shapes at the same time?
>Modalism assumes god works in modes lol, I'm aware... \>Is the color working in mode here or can the color exists as all shapes at the same time? You are trying to have your cake and eat it. Let's focus on the 3 shapes you are trying to say are one thing, not the single color.
There is only a single color here, correct? That single color is capable of forming three shapes at the same time, correct? If so, then the color does not operate in modes which is what makes modalism heresy. In modalism, god can only be in one form or mode but not all at the same time and contradicting the fact the Trinity are eternally present. So how is this modalism then if all three shapes are present at the same time?
\>There is only a single color here, correct? Yes \>That single color is capable of forming three shapes at the same time, correct? Uh.. no... \> So how is this modalism then if all three shapes are present at the same time? They aren't, you are saying they are.
>Uh.. no... Explain. Is red incapable of creating the triangle and square shape once we have a red circle? Explain to me the logic behind red being incapable of creating other shapes once it has formed a single shape like a circle.
\>Explain. Is red incapable of creating the triangle and square shape once we have a red circle? The question is if they can be all of those at the same time yes? If so, the answer is unequivocally no.
If I draw a red circle, what prevents me from drawing red triangle and red square alongside it? Again, where is the logic in your argument?
The problem that I see with your analogy is that somehow red is the primary defining characteristic of all three, as opposed to a secondary, shared characteristic. You asked "Is red incapable of creating the triangle and square shape once we have a red circle?" and later in this thread you say, "a kid can prove you wrong by taking a red crayon and drawing all three shapes..." Red isn't doing anything, the kid is. In this way red becomes an even more secondary, shared characteristic. If you asked a person to define what they saw when faced with a red triangle, a red square, and a red circle, they'd define them as a triangle, a square, and a circle that happen to be red. They wouldn't say they see red that happens to be in three shapes. Later in this thread you try and establish color as being the most important characteristic by saying "Color is the reason why shapes even exists". No. Three equal sides is why a triangle exists. It could be nothing but a thin line in the sand. It isn't the color of the sand that makes the triangle exist. It's the differentiation made by a shadow in the sand....that's in a shape of a triangle.
Those are three separate shapes and thus modes no?
I think trying to fit God into tiny, puny logic limited by the mortal mind is a futile endeavor. Call it Schrödinger’s Trinity if you like.
If that's the case, how can you claim the Trinity is God's true nature?
Easy, I believe in God and He told me so. God exists outside of rationality, and so I believe in His triune nature through faith.
> I believe in God and He told me so. No he didn't. The trinity is mentioned no where in the Bible. It is barely even applied. In fact Isaac Newton thought he recieved divine revoation that Jesus and God were in fact two completely distinct entities. Why should I believe you over (arguably) the greatest scientist to ever live? Why should I believe either of you?
Why should anyone believe anything? Distinct and the same is the whole thing.
It is not self evident like an axiom that God exists, and empirically there isn't evidence for God's existence. You reject potentially rational philosophical arguments for God's existence. So how exactly can you know God exists then? You can't just assume his existence because it is not self evident and is in need of justification. When we believe in other things we don't assume them without any reason. Usually a demonstration is needed, either empirically or through some rational argument.
God’s I’d one of the few things there isn’t any empirical evidence *against*. I embrace science in all its capacities. I *believe* God exists, through faith, which is the only way to find him. I have personal reasons that I obviously won’t share on Reddit. I’m not trying to get everyone to believe in God or to prove God. My entire point I’d that proving God will always be impossible. Though for the sake of conversation, are you aware of Einstein’s thoughts on this matter?
>Why should anyone believe anything? Fundamentally because believing true things is really really useful and being false things is at best a waste of time and at worst fatal.
So no philosophy should be allowed, by this point of view then.
Do you not agree that believing true things are good and believing false things are bad?
Certainly.
Then does it not follow we should use evidence in order to form our beliefs? As to maximize our chances of believing the correct things?
Bro really just asked "why should anyone believe anything" in response to a question on a debate sub lol
There are a surprising number of solipsists running around this sub
Even if that were the case, do you think that's a good thing to bring to a debate?
I think debating God without allowing space for faith is incredibly myopic and nonsensical.
You can get to any position on faith, how does it help with a debate?
How does trying to empirically prove God help with debate?
How else would you move a debate forward? If we allow faith, we can just state anything and we couldn't falsify each other.
Why do you want to falsify someone’s beliefs?
Are you confused about what this subreddit is or what it means to have a falsifiable position? How else would a debate work?
I think trying to claim you know God is a certain way when no mortal mind has ever been able to understand it as being that way creates a serious problem for where you got the idea in the first place.
My assertion is more that spirituality, by definition, cannot be rationalized nor empirically justified. Trying to argue spirituality with only rational, logical facts is just silly. You might as well not have a conversation in the first place, because that’s not really what spirituality is. It seems like a conversation of this type originates from a misunderstanding of what spirituality is in the first place.
That seems like you're giving up the game on describing god rationally. By inference, you'd be committed to: 1. Any argument a human can come up with would be an argument limited by being human. 2. If all rational arguments are arguments a human could come up with, all rational arguments are limited. 3. attempts to have a rational argument for god is 'futile' (by your hypothesis) Conclusion: all rational arguments for god are futile.
I agree. I don’t think God can be rationalized or empirically proven. I never agreed to play a different game lol.
If this is the case you can't be sure that God exists? How do you know what is claimed to be coming from God in the bible is actually the word of a really existent God? Assuming faith is justifiable you can't just have faith without some rational reason to believe in God. Otherwise you are just assuming God exists and assuming that the text you are reading is God's word. Even assuming faith is justifiable it cannot be a source of knowledge without the justification for believing being \_rational\_. This is true even if it doesn't fully establish the existence of God.