PDA

View Full Version : Is The Trinity Logical?



Meh Gerbil
05-20-2016, 07:16 PM
I had someone claim that God cannot do the logically impossible.

As a rebuttal I proposed that the concept of the Trinity would be a case where a doctrine defies pure logic.
As a rebuttal I proposed that Creation ex nihilo (something from nothing) also defies pure logic.

So a couple of things for you to bat around:

1: Is there any way the Trinity could be said to be logical?
2: Is there any way Creation ex nihilo (not the theory, the something from nothing component) could be said to be logical?

Please don't turn this into a Creation vs. Evolution thread - no part of this thread is about that.

shunyadragon
05-20-2016, 07:22 PM
I had someone claim that God cannot do the logically impossible.

As a rebuttal I proposed that the concept of the Trinity would be a case where a doctrine defies pure logic.
As a rebuttal I proposed that Creation ex nihilo (something from nothing) also defies pure logic.

So a couple of things for you to bat around:

1: Is there any way the Trinity could be said to be logical?
2: Is there any way Creation ex nihilo (not the theory, the something from nothing component) could be said to be logical?

Please don't turn this into a Creation vs. Evolution thread - no part of this thread is about that.

I do not consider the belief in the trinity logical nor illogical. Trying to use logic to defend the Trinity only ends up to be begging the question.

Chrawnus
05-20-2016, 08:03 PM
I had someone claim that God cannot do the logically impossible.

As a rebuttal I proposed that the concept of the Trinity would be a case where a doctrine defies pure logic.
As a rebuttal I proposed that Creation ex nihilo (something from nothing) also defies pure logic.

So a couple of things for you to bat around:

1: Is there any way the Trinity could be said to be logical?
2: Is there any way Creation ex nihilo (not the theory, the something from nothing component) could be said to be logical?

Please don't turn this into a Creation vs. Evolution thread - no part of this thread is about that.

The Trinity may defy our understanding, but I've yet to see someone demonstrate that it defies logic.

Same goes with creatio ex nihilo. :shrug:

I don't know of a way that the concept of the Trinity or 'creatio ex nihilo' can be shown to be logical, but I haven't seen anyone demonstrate that they are illogical yet.

Adrift
05-20-2016, 10:03 PM
The Trinity may defy our understanding, but I've yet to see someone demonstrate that it defies logic.

Same goes with creatio ex nihilo. :shrug:

I don't know of a way that the concept of the Trinity or 'creatio ex nihilo' can be shown to be logical, but I haven't seen anyone demonstrate that they are illogical yet.

I think philosophers like WLC offer a way of seeing that creatio ex nihilo is logical. Coming from an anti-trinity cult, the trinity is a bit harder to explain, but having come into orthodoxy, I don't see how the doctrine of the trinity is illogical either. Ernie, if you're authentically curious about the the doctrine of the trinity, I highly suggest Dr. Craig's Defenders series on the nature of God and the nature of the trinity: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defenders-2-podcast/s5

Meh Gerbil
05-21-2016, 04:14 AM
I hold to the doctrine of the Trinity and to creation ex nihilo.
However, I think both of these things defy logic and by that I mean the subset of logic to which God has given us access.

So in a sense both are illogical which would be another way of saying "beyond our ability to reconcile".

The reason the issue came up is that another poster was claiming God cannot be illogical/defy logic/act in a way inconsistent with logic.
That isn't a mathematical statement though, it is a statement of faith because it is beyond our ability to evaluate.
As such it would be entirely unimpressive to a skeptic.

Skeptic: "How can God be three and one? That is illogical."
Christian: "God cannot defy logic."
Skeptic: "Oh, thanks man."

metacrock
05-21-2016, 07:07 AM
I had someone claim that God cannot do the logically impossible.

As a rebuttal I proposed that the concept of the Trinity would be a case where a doctrine defies pure logic.
As a rebuttal I proposed that Creation ex nihilo (something from nothing) also defies pure logic.

So a couple of things for you to bat around:

1: Is there any way the Trinity could be said to be logical?
2: Is there any way Creation ex nihilo (not the theory, the something from nothing component) could be said to be logical?

Please don't turn this into a Creation vs. Evolution thread - no part of this thread is about that.

defying logic and being logically impossible are two different things. something defies logic if you don't understand it that doesn't mean illogical,. But Trinity odes not defy logic if you understand it,

metacrock
05-21-2016, 07:08 AM
I hold to the doctrine of the Trinity and to creation ex nihilo.
However, I think both of these things defy logic and by that I mean the subset of logic to which God has given us access.

So in a sense both are illogical which would be another way of saying "beyond our ability to reconcile".

The reason the issue came up is that another poster was claiming God cannot be illogical/defy logic/act in a way inconsistent with logic.
That isn't a mathematical statement though, it is a statement of faith because it is beyond our ability to evaluate.
As such it would be entirely unimpressive to a skeptic.

Skeptic: "How can God be three and one? That is illogical."
Christian: "God cannot defy logic."
Skeptic: "Oh, thanks man."

most people don't understand the doctrine of Trinity, It does not say being beings in one being, three persona in one Hamousis, or essence, not a contradiction at all.

37818
05-21-2016, 08:31 AM
The Trinity is the explanation of there being three different persons who each are the one and the same one God. You do not explain an explanation.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5Mr9xlUTQo

Sparko
05-21-2016, 09:14 AM
maybe you mean "defy known physical laws" instead of "defy logic" gerbz?

logical doesn't just mean "makes sense" it means corresponding to reality. it is a type of argument that is used to determine the reality and validity of a conclusion.

it is how we reason.

there are certain "laws" or axioms of logic that cannot be broken because to do so would just be nonsense. such as the law of noncontradiction. something cant be A and not-A at the same time and in the same manner. God can't exist and not exist at the same time, for example. So in that sense, God has to follow logic just like any other thing does. he can't defy logic. because that would just be nonsense.

creating ex nihilo is not illogical for an omnipotent being. Just incomprehensible to us. Same with the Trinity. we can't comprehend it but it is not illogical.

Trout
05-21-2016, 09:16 AM
maybe you mean "defy known physical laws" instead of "defy logic" gerbz?

logical doesn't just mean "makes sense" it means corresponding to reality. it is a type of argument that is used to determine the reality and validity of a conclusion.

it is how we reason.

there are certain "laws" or axioms of logic that cannot be broken because to do so would just be nonsense. such as the law of noncontradiction. something cant be A and not-A at the same time and in the same manner. God can't exist and not exist at the same time, for example. So in that sense, God has to follow logic just like any other thing does. he can't defy logic. because that would just be nonsense.

creating ex nihilo is not illogical for an omnipotent being. Just incomprehensible to us. Same with the Trinity. we can't comprehend it but it is not illogical.

Them's a bunch of $10 words, Sparko.

37818
05-21-2016, 09:24 AM
Them's a bunch of $10 words, Sparko.

Do you want two $5's or 10 $1's or 1000 pennies. 5 $2 bills are an option too. Or just bunch of meaningless rocks.

Sparko
05-21-2016, 12:12 PM
Them's a bunch of $10 words, Sparko.I had a coupon!

Meh Gerbil
05-21-2016, 01:18 PM
I think I just had an unpleasant realization.
It occurs to me that if 'ex nihilo' and 'trinity' are so easily understood by others that I'm way out of my depth here.

I apologize for wasting your time.
I'm not even being sarcastic.

Keep up the good work.

Adrift
05-21-2016, 03:45 PM
I think I just had an unpleasant realization.
It occurs to me that if 'ex nihilo' and 'trinity' are so easily understood by others that I'm way out of my depth here.

I apologize for wasting your time.
I'm not even being sarcastic.

Keep up the good work.

It's only a waste of time if you've gotten absolutely nothing out of what people have said here, and I don't see why that should be the case. As Sparko and Chrawnus rightly puts it, the issue seems more one of semantics than anything. creatio ex nihilo, and the trinity may be difficult for limited mortals to fully comprehend, but that's quite a bit different than questioning whether they're logical.I don't fully understand how my monitor works, but I don't question whether it's logical that it does.

In your scenario of the skeptic and the Christian, the Christian might have been able to help the skeptic better by offering an analogy. I mean, it's not exactly hard to conceive of a being that is three but also one. So for instance, WLC hesitantly offers up the example of the mythical three headed dog of Hades, Cerberus, or if you read Marvel comics, there's the Living Tribunal. Now, of course, analogies can only go so far, and ultimately since the trinity is unique, no example will ever serve to explain it in full, but the point is, there's not anything necessarily illogical about claiming that three can also be one. Same with creatio ex nihilo, just because we may not know the exact mechanics behind God's creating from nothing doesn't mean that it defies logic. At the very least, we know that in order to accomplish creation from nothing it requires immense power and will.

When we refer to the logically impossible, we refer not only to those things that are difficult to comprehend, but to those things that would be patently absurd if true. Things like square circles, and married bachelors, rocks so heavy that even the Creator can't lift them, these are concepts that are logically impossible, and that would be absurd to posit that God can somehow make come to pass. To say that God cannot do the logically impossible does not mean that God is somehow less than omnipotent. It's not a weakness. God's omnipotence has always been understand within Christianity as the ability to do all that which is consistent with his own nature. God cannot sin, he cannot be deceived, he cannot die. Since the logical, orderly, and good are bound in God's very nature, then he can do anything which is logically possible, and nothing that is logically impossible.

One Bad Pig
05-21-2016, 05:02 PM
I think I just had an unpleasant realization.
It occurs to me that if 'ex nihilo' and 'trinity' are so easily understood by others that I'm way out of my depth here.

I apologize for wasting your time.
I'm not even being sarcastic.

Keep up the good work.
The Trinity is certainly not easily understood. If it were, it wouldn't have taken the church nearly 4 centuries to nail down (and it took even longer to nail down Jesus' attributes as God and man, causing various splits along the way).

Creatio ex nihilo is perhaps not quite so hard to nail down, but IMO it is not more logically absurd than the current naturalistic idea of a quantum fluctuation of nothing.

37818
05-21-2016, 05:48 PM
Trinity-solution-not-problem-part-1 (https://bible.org/node/24217)
Trinity-solution-not-problem-part-2 (https://bible.org/article/trinity-solution-not-problem-part-2)

NorrinRadd
05-21-2016, 09:45 PM
I had someone claim that God cannot do the logically impossible.

As a rebuttal I proposed that the concept of the Trinity would be a case where a doctrine defies pure logic.
As a rebuttal I proposed that Creation ex nihilo (something from nothing) also defies pure logic.

So a couple of things for you to bat around:

1: Is there any way the Trinity could be said to be logical?

Here is what Scripture teaches:

God is "one," and His revealed memorial name is "I AM." (Deut. 6:4, Mark 12:29, Ex. 3:13-15).

The Father is God. (1 Tim. 1:2, Phm. 1:3, etc.; John 20:17; pretty much any reference to "the Father" implicitly includes the notion of Deity).

The Son is God, specifically, "I AM." (John 1:1; John 8:24, 28, 58; Mark 14:62).

The Spirit is God, specifically, "I AM." (This is less explicit than the Deity of the Son, but implied in Gen. 1:2, Matt. 3:16, 1 Cor. 2:11, 14, 3:16, 2 Sam. 22:2-3, Isa. 40:13, and many others.)

The Father, Son, and Spirit are distinct, and interact with each other. (See the Gospel accounts of the baptism of Jesus, the Transfiguration accounts, any place where Jesus prays to the Father, and especially John's Last Supper account and many other places in John's Gospel.)


So from Scripture we have three distinct persons, each of whom is God, "I AM," and yet somehow "I AM" is "one."

The standard theological/apologetic explanation is that God is one in "essence" or "substance," but three in "person." Since those are categorically different, there is no logical contradiction.

The skeptic might reasonably object that in actual practice, we never encounter more than one "person" in a single "substance" (human body), except in cases of MPD psychosis, and so the standard explanation for the Trinity constitutes special pleading.


To me it does not particularly matter whether the doctrine supports rigorous logical scrutiny. It is clear enough that Scripture teaches that God is "one," and yet comprises three distinct persons, so I accept it.


IMO, there are other things in Scripture that are even harder to support logically:

Scripture explicitly asserts that I AM does not change (Mal. 3:6). Jesus asserts that He is "I AM" (John 8). Hebrews directly asserts that Jesus is the same "yesterday, today, and forever" (13:8). And yet at a point in time, God, the Word (Jesus) "became" flesh (John 1:14). There is no "logical" way that a thing can "become" something else, and yet remain "the same" and "not change."

I am satisfied that human language and intellect are insufficient to deal with some divine mysteries in a way that satisfies "logic." That does not make the mysteries untrue, except to those whose god IS logic.



2: Is there any way Creation ex nihilo (not the theory, the something from nothing component) could be said to be logical?

ISTM that's a question of a priori assumptions, not logic.

Adrift
05-22-2016, 06:51 AM
IMO, there are other things in Scripture that are even harder to support logically:

Scripture explicitly asserts that I AM does not change (Mal. 3:6). Jesus asserts that He is "I AM" (John 8). Hebrews directly asserts that Jesus is the same "yesterday, today, and forever" (13:8). And yet at a point in time, God, the Word (Jesus) "became" flesh (John 1:14). There is no "logical" way that a thing can "become" something else, and yet remain "the same" and "not change."

I am satisfied that human language and intellect are insufficient to deal with some divine mysteries in a way that satisfies "logic." That does not make the mysteries untrue, except to those whose god IS logic.

Traditionally the church has dealt with this by explaining that Jesus' divine nature remained the same while he took on a second nature (the flesh) at his incarnation.

Sparko
05-22-2016, 06:52 AM
if we said the trinity was three gods in one god, that would be illogical, or three distinct persons in one person. But we say the trinity is three distinct persons in one God.

a (poor) analogy is a person with three personalities. that is not illogical. three human beings in one human being would be illogical.

for the nitpickers, I am not saying God has multiple personalties, that would be completely wrong. it is just an analogy to show "3 in 1" -- the "3" is not the same thing as the "1" is, so it is not contradictory.

NorrinRadd
05-22-2016, 07:13 AM
Traditionally the church has dealt with this by explaining that Jesus' divine nature remained the same while he took on a second nature (the flesh) at his incarnation.

Right. But that is not what Scripture says. Scripture explicitly speaks of one thing that "became" another thing. And even the traditional explanation is a stretch; saying that taking on an additional, completely different nature does not constitute "change," but rather is remaining "the same," strains the limits of meaningful language.

Meh Gerbil
05-22-2016, 07:45 AM
Right. But that is not what Scripture says. Scripture explicitly speaks of one thing that "became" another thing. And even the traditional explanation is a stretch; saying that taking on an additional, completely different nature does not constitute "change," but rather is remaining "the same," strains the limits of meaningful language.You may be out of your depth.
You can talk to me about ducks in the Drama Club.

Gary
05-22-2016, 09:43 AM
if we said the trinity was three gods in one god, that would be illogical, or three distinct persons in one person. But we say the trinity is three distinct persons in one God.

a (poor) analogy is a person with three personalities. that is not illogical. three human beings in one human being would be illogical.

for the nitpickers, I am not saying God has multiple personalties, that would be completely wrong. it is just an analogy to show "3 in 1" -- the "3" is not the same thing as the "1" is, so it is not contradictory.

3 never equals 1 and 1 never equals 3.

The concept of a "Three in One" developed over hundreds of years in attempt by Christians to maintain the façade that they were monotheists and not polytheists. It is spin, pure and simple.

thewriteranon
05-22-2016, 10:37 AM
if we said the trinity was three gods in one god, that would be illogical, or three distinct persons in one person. But we say the trinity is three distinct persons in one God.

a (poor) analogy is a person with three personalities. that is not illogical. three human beings in one human being would be illogical.

for the nitpickers, I am not saying God has multiple personalties, that would be completely wrong. it is just an analogy to show "3 in 1" -- the "3" is not the same thing as the "1" is, so it is not contradictory.

That's a bad analogy, Patrick.

Happy Holy Trinity Sunday, ya Patricks.

Christianbookworm
05-22-2016, 10:40 AM
That's a bad analogy, Patrick.

Happy Holy Trinity Sunday, ya Patricks.

There can be no good analogy, because God is not completely like anything He has made. Totally other.

thewriteranon
05-22-2016, 10:41 AM
There can be no good analogy, because God is not completely like anything He has made. Totally other.

Well why didn't you just say that to start with, Patrick?

Meh Gerbil
05-22-2016, 11:20 AM
3 never equals 1 and 1 never equals 3.
The concept of a "Three in One" developed over hundreds of years in attempt by Christians to maintain the façade that they were monotheists and not polytheists. It is spin, pure and simple.
We have people here who understand these truths in purely logical terms.
You and I aren't equipped to grasp it.

A man has to know his limitations.

NorrinRadd
05-22-2016, 12:04 PM
You may be out of your depth.
You can talk to me about ducks in the Drama Club.


We have people here who understand these truths in purely logical terms.
You and I aren't equipped to grasp it.

I'm afraid I'm considerably less humble than you. IMO, I "understand" just fine: I understand that some things transcend human logic and language, and that some prized theological dogmas and explanations are feeble attempts to circumvent that.



A man has to know his limitations.

Thank you, Detective Callahan.

Adrift
05-22-2016, 12:40 PM
Right. But that is not what Scripture says. Scripture explicitly speaks of one thing that "became" another thing. And even the traditional explanation is a stretch; saying that taking on an additional, completely different nature does not constitute "change," but rather is remaining "the same," strains the limits of meaningful language.

It's consistent with the rest of scripture to see that Jesus retained his divinity in the incarnation. I think it's a greater stretch to say that Jesus' lost his divinity at his incarnation, or that his divine nature transformed into a human nature. If that were the case then it could rightly be said that Jesus was not God during his incarnation, nor is he God now being embodied and the first fruit of the resurrected. I don't think that's a position you'd want to hold though. So you're not given many options other than to say that God assumed a second nature in the incarnation, while his divine nature remained unfazed.

Ben Witherington III commenting on this passage writes,

At v. 14 the logos finally reaches the human stage. The strophes before this were not in any direct way talking about the incarnation, but here the subject is directly treated. Here one finds “ho logos sarx egeneto.” This means “the Word became flesh.” It certainly does not mean that the Word turned into flesh with no remainder, because he remains the Word who is beheld by the community at the end of the hymn. Thus it might be better to say that what is meant is either the Word took on flesh, or the Word came on the human scene. The Word became more than he was before, not less. To his divine nature he added a human one.

Also Andreas Köstenberger and Alexander Stewart,

In the original Greek, the word translated "flesh" (sarx) is almost crude. The expression refers to creatureliness in its material nature opposite the realm of the spirit. As Jesus said to Nicodemus, "That which is born of flesh is flesh, and that which is born of spirit is spirit. " The fourth Evangelist chooses not the word soma (translated "body") but the word translated "flesh, " in order to distinguish it from the spiritual realm. The preexistent Word, John announces, entered the realm of the creatures he himself had made.

Now it is important here to understand what John is not saying. He is not saying that the Word, when he became flesh, ceased to be the Word. Instead, the Word took on flesh in the sense that he remained the Word while adding to himself a fleshy nature. Later on, the church would develop the doctrine of the dual natures of Jesus, the God-man, as combining within himself both a divine and a human nature. But that theological formulation came centuries later. For now, John presents the Messiah as the Word-become-flesh, as fully divine and fully human, both at the same time. While hard to grasp intellectually, it is nonetheless true historically and theologically. "The Word became flesh."

William Lane Craig does a good job of pointing out that the Bible identifies Jesus as both human and divine, and early heresies would arise with those leaning towards one nature over the other. He then goes on to explain how the church answered these heresies with the doctrine of Jesus' two natures. http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-birth-of-god

Adrift
05-22-2016, 12:46 PM
We have people here who understand these truths in purely logical terms.
You and I aren't equipped to grasp it.

I don't believe that to be the case. This is not that deep really. It's a matter of recognizing the difference between "difficult to comprehend" and "not logical". As I pointed out earlier, there are plenty of things in our day to day lives that are difficult to comprehend that remain perfectly logical.

Meh Gerbil
05-22-2016, 12:46 PM
Thank you, Detective Callahan.
Dirty Harry FTW!

Kbertsche
05-22-2016, 04:37 PM
I had someone claim that God cannot do the logically impossible.
I agree with your critics. God cannot do the logically impossible (e.g. Making a rock so big that He can't move it, making 2+2=5), He cannot act contrary to His own nature, He cannot sin. Any orthodox formulation of divine omnipotence recognizes these limitations.


As a rebuttal I proposed that the concept of the Trinity would be a case where a doctrine defies pure logic.
As a rebuttal I proposed that Creation ex nihilo (something from nothing) also defies pure logic.

As others have said, "hard to understand" is not the same as "logically impossible". There are things about God that we can NEVER understand in our limited human state, but this does not mean that they are logically impossible.

shunyadragon
05-22-2016, 08:33 PM
Of course, the Trinity is not logical nor illogical. I simply reject the Trinity, because it is a Hellenist/Roman view of God, and in contradiction with the monotheistic God of the Hebrew Old Testament, and Islam and the Baha'i Faith. Claims of it is difficult to understand, beyond human comprehension is 'Blue Smoke and Mirrors' avoiding the reality of the problems of the reality of the Trinity.

Sparko
05-23-2016, 05:26 AM
3 never equals 1 and 1 never equals 3.

The concept of a "Three in One" developed over hundreds of years in attempt by Christians to maintain the façade that they were monotheists and not polytheists. It is spin, pure and simple.wrong. Nice to know you don't know logic. Or math.

Or history. That's three errors in one idiot.

37818
05-23-2016, 05:45 AM
if we said the trinity was three gods in one god, that would be illogical, or three distinct persons in one person. But we say the trinity is three distinct persons in one God.

a (poor) analogy is a person with three personalities. that is not illogical. three human beings in one human being would be illogical.

for the nitpickers, I am not saying God has multiple personalties, that would be completely wrong. it is just an analogy to show "3 in 1" -- the "3" is not the same thing as the "1" is, so it is not contradictory.

In the OT God is spoken of as one Person. And He refers to Himself more than once as Us. The most common Hebrew word translated God in the singular is actually plural. In Isaiah 43:10 the singular form translated God is used.

shunyadragon
05-23-2016, 03:06 PM
In the OT God is spoken of as one Person. And He refers to Himself more than once as Us. The most common Hebrew word translated God in the singular is actually plural. In Isaiah 43:10 the singular form translated God is used.

The Hebrew plural for God is still singular in reference to God.

Gary
05-23-2016, 04:06 PM
In the OT God is spoken of as one Person. And He refers to Himself more than once as Us. The most common Hebrew word translated God in the singular is actually plural. In Isaiah 43:10 the singular form translated God is used.

Jewish rabbis say that you and other Trinitarian Christians do not understand Hebrew and this is why you misunderstand these "us" passages.

An example the rabbis give to explain the use of "us" in this passage would be this: If Henry the XIII had woken up one morning and said, "We would like to eat breakfast", would his servants have understood that three persons wanted to eat breakfast or that the King of England, speaking in the first person plural (the majestic plural), wanted to singularly eat breakfast??

Read the Jewish clarification on this point here: https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/articles/answers/jewish-polemics/trinity/what-is-the-meaning-of-god-said-qlet-us-make-man-in-our-image/

shunyadragon
05-23-2016, 06:03 PM
In the OT God is spoken of as one Person.

This a common anthropomorphic view of God(s) in ancient cultures.

Meh Gerbil
05-23-2016, 06:16 PM
Of course, the Trinity is not logical nor illogical.
Wouldn't it have to be one or the other?
I think I just burned the Shunyadragon and I award myself +1 internets.

37818
05-23-2016, 07:47 PM
The Trinity as the explanation is the most logical regarding God as found in the Bible. And happens to be a necessary one regarding there even being God.

shunyadragon
05-23-2016, 08:05 PM
The Trinity as the explanation is the most logical regarding God as found in the Bible. And happens to be a necessary one regarding there even being God.

The nature of God is not dependent on fallible human logic justifying one's belief.

shunyadragon
05-23-2016, 08:11 PM
Wouldn't it have to be one or the other?
I think I just burned the Shunyadragon and I award myself +1 internets.

If you try to argue for the existence of God or one claim or the other for the nature of God, you will 'beg the question' to justify your conclusion. My belief in God and the nature of God as purely monotheistic and unknowable from the human belief is based religious teaching from different religions, personal spiritual search and reflection, and not on unfortunate fallible human logical arguments.

NorrinRadd
05-23-2016, 09:52 PM
Jewish rabbis say that you and other Trinitarian Christians...

Anyone who does not believe and confess that Jesus is I AM is not saved, but rather will die in his or her sins. So, "non-Trinitarian Christian" is kind of any oxymoron.



... do not understand Hebrew and this is why you misunderstand these "us" passages.

An example the rabbis give to explain the use of "us" in this passage would be this: If Henry the XIII had woken up one morning and said, "We would like to eat breakfast", would his servants have understood that three persons wanted to eat breakfast or that the King of England, speaking in the first person plural (the majestic plural), wanted to singularly eat breakfast??

Read the Jewish clarification on this point here: https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/articles/answers/jewish-polemics/trinity/what-is-the-meaning-of-god-said-qlet-us-make-man-in-our-image/

With all due respect, so what? The doctrine of the Trinity is not *based* on OT passages, but it argues the OT *allows* for it. The doctrine is mostly based on NT passages, written IN Greek, but BY Hebrews. The NT affirms the Shema, while also teaching both the deity and distinctness of Father, Son, and Spirit.

shunyadragon
05-24-2016, 04:53 AM
With all due respect, so what? The doctrine of the Trinity is not *based* on OT passages, but it argues the OT *allows* for it. The doctrine is mostly based on NT passages, written IN Greek, but BY Hebrews. The NT affirms the Shema, while also teaching both the deity and distinctness of Father, Son, and Spirit.

The argument that OT passages *allows" for it requires a contorted logic excluding the passages that do not *allow* for a Trinitarian God with an incarnate God, Jesus Christ. I believe it is speculation that the gospels were written by Hebrews

Chrawnus
05-24-2016, 05:04 AM
. . . the passages that do not *allow* for a Trinitarian God with an incarnate God, Jesus Christ . . .

There are no such passages. :shrug:

Sparko
05-24-2016, 06:19 AM
Wouldn't it have to be one or the other?
I think I just burned the Shunyadragon and I award myself +1 internets.111. Eleventy-eleven!!! You win.

Sparko
05-24-2016, 06:31 AM
The reason we believe in the Trinity is because the NT clearly says there is one God. And it also clearly says that the Father is God, that the Holy Spirit is God, and that Jesus is God. It also says they are distinct persons. So three disctinct persons yet each is God, and there is only one God. The Trinity. We don't comprehend it, but it doesn't break any logic, in fact it is the only logical conclusion based on the various passages and claims in the bible. It never says there is one God and three Gods at the same time. It says there are three persons who are all ONE God. And each is fully God, not 1/3 God. Three Who's and one What.

37818
05-24-2016, 07:34 AM
The nature of God is not dependent on fallible human logic justifying one's belief.

True. But true logic from were valid human logic must be based comes from that God.

Sparko
05-24-2016, 08:15 AM
True. But true logic from were valid human logic must be based comes from that God.God didn't make logic. Logic isnt a thing to be made. It is merely reality, how things are, and what we call logic is the language we use to reason out that reality. Even God has to "obey" logic because he is real. He can't exist and not exist at the same time because that would just be nonsense. He can't make a square circle because that is just nonsense. God didn't make it that way, it just is. There is no way God could have made it any other way, he could not have made it so he could both exist and not exist, for example.

Gary
05-24-2016, 08:18 AM
Anyone who does not believe and confess that Jesus is I AM is not saved, but rather will die in his or her sins. So, "non-Trinitarian Christian" is kind of any oxymoron.




With all due respect, so what? The doctrine of the Trinity is not *based* on OT passages, but it argues the OT *allows* for it. The doctrine is mostly based on NT passages, written IN Greek, but BY Hebrews. The NT affirms the Shema, while also teaching both the deity and distinctness of Father, Son, and Spirit.

What proof do you have that the Gospels were written by "Hebrews"?

Answer: none

Gary
05-24-2016, 08:21 AM
The reason we believe in the Trinity is because the NT clearly says there is one God. And it also clearly says that the Father is God, that the Holy Spirit is God, and that Jesus is God. It also says they are distinct persons. So three disctinct persons yet each is God, and there is only one God. The Trinity. We don't comprehend it, but it doesn't break any logic, in fact it is the only logical conclusion based on the various passages and claims in the bible. It never says there is one God and three Gods at the same time. It says there are three persons who are all ONE God. And each is fully God, not 1/3 God. Three Who's and one What.

There is no clear expression of a concept of a Trinity (three in one, coequal persons of the godhead) in the New Testament except for the Johannine Commae which is a known scribal alteration.

The Trinity is the invention of Gentile Christians, hundreds of years after every apostle was dead, in a desperate attempt to claim that Christianity was monotheistic and therefore the fulfillment of monotheistic Judaism.

Spin.

Christianity is a polytheistic, new religion. It is no more the fulfillment of Judaism than Mormonism is the fulfillment of traditional Christianity.

Sparko
05-24-2016, 08:57 AM
There is no clear expression of a concept of a Trinity (three in one, coequal persons of the godhead) in the New Testament except for the Johannine Commae which is a known scribal alteration.

The Trinity is the invention of Gentile Christians, hundreds of years after every apostle was dead, in a desperate attempt to claim that Christianity was monotheistic and therefore the fulfillment of monotheistic Judaism.

Spin.

Christianity is a polytheistic, new religion. It is no more the fulfillment of Judaism than Mormonism is the fulfillment of traditional Christianity.

You need to actually read the bible instead of merely repeating some atheist talking points you found via google.

The bible is pretty clear at multiple points that there is one God.

here are a couple:
"You are my witnesses," declares the LORD, "and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me" (Isaiah 43:10).

Isaiah 44:6 "This is what the LORD says-- Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God. 7 Who then is like me? Let him proclaim it. Let him declare and lay out before me what has happened since I established my ancient people, and what is yet to come-- yes, let him foretell what will come. 8 Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago? You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one."*

The bible is also clear that Jesus is God:
John 1:3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

Col. 1:16-17 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

*2 Timothy 3:16 Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He (1) appeared in a body (2), was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory. NIV footnotes: (1) Some manuscripts God -- (2) Or in the flesh

*John 20:27 Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe." 28 Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"

2 Peter 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours:

Titus 2:13 while we wait for the blessed hope--the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ

--
I can go on to show the Father is God and the Holy Spirit is God if you like. And numerous passages that equate attributes of Yahweh with Jesus, such as Savior, Creator, Shepherd, King, and being worthy of worship,

So we have ONE God, and three persons who are this one God, and yet each person exists at the same time, and is not each other. The father is not the son, or the holy spirit, and vice versa.

That is the Trinity in a nutshell, shown to you from the bible. Clearly expressed from the scriptures. Now off you go, back to your atheist websites for more talking points. scoot.

shunyadragon
05-24-2016, 09:19 AM
True. But [true] logic from were [valid] human logic must be based comes from that God.

There are too many arguments by fallible human reasoning which do not agree in the conclusions for the above to workable. There is no viable reasoning the concludes human logic can [true] and [valid] based on what comes from God.

Basically humans use logic to justify what they believe, and not to objectively compare alternative conclusions.

shunyadragon
05-24-2016, 09:33 AM
There are no such passages. :shrug:



Hosea 11:9 - I am God and not a man

There is no specific reference in the OT that God may be incarnate.



In sum, Christians read the Old Testament through the lens of the New. For example, the former speaks of God as working by his “word”, “wisdom”, or “spirit”. Some New Testament passages call Jesus Christ the word and wisdom of God, and in the Gospel of John, Jesus talks about the sending of another comforter or helper, the “Holy Spirit”. Thus, some Christians claim the door was open to positing two divine intelligent agents in addition to “the Father”, by, through, or in whom the Father acts, one of whom was incarnated in the man Jesus. In opposition, other Christian readers have taken these passages to involve anthropomorphization of divine attributes, urging that Greek speculations unfortunately encouraged the aforementioned hypostasizations.

Sparko
05-24-2016, 09:46 AM
Hosea 11:9 - I am God and not a man

There is no specific reference in the OT that God may be incarnate.



In sum, Christians read the Old Testament through the lens of the New. For example, the former speaks of God as working by his “word”, “wisdom”, or “spirit”. Some New Testament passages call Jesus Christ the word and wisdom of God, and in the Gospel of John, Jesus talks about the sending of another comforter or helper, the “Holy Spirit”. Thus, some Christians claim the door was open to positing two divine intelligent agents in addition to “the Father”, by, through, or in whom the Father acts, one of whom was incarnated in the man Jesus. In opposition, other Christian readers have taken these passages to involve anthropomorphization of divine attributes, urging that Greek speculations unfortunately encouraged the aforementioned hypostasizations. There are lots of theophanies, Shuny, so God becoming a man is not a stretch. And that verse from Hosea was written before the incarnation, before the logos became flesh.

There is nothing in the OT that eliminates the Trinity or God becoming flesh and taking on a second nature. The OT pretty much hints at it throughout. Especially in Isaiah.

Gary
05-24-2016, 10:06 AM
You need to actually read the bible instead of merely repeating some atheist talking points you found via google.

The bible is pretty clear at multiple points that there is one God.

here are a couple:
"You are my witnesses," declares the LORD, "and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me" (Isaiah 43:10).

Isaiah 44:6 "This is what the LORD says-- Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God. 7 Who then is like me? Let him proclaim it. Let him declare and lay out before me what has happened since I established my ancient people, and what is yet to come-- yes, let him foretell what will come. 8 Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago? You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one."*

The bible is also clear that Jesus is God:
John 1:3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

Col. 1:16-17 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

*2 Timothy 3:16 Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He (1) appeared in a body (2), was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory. NIV footnotes: (1) Some manuscripts God -- (2) Or in the flesh

*John 20:27 Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe." 28 Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"

2 Peter 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours:

Titus 2:13 while we wait for the blessed hope--the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ

--
I can go on to show the Father is God and the Holy Spirit is God if you like. And numerous passages that equate attributes of Yahweh with Jesus, such as Savior, Creator, Shepherd, King, and being worthy of worship,

So we have ONE God, and three persons who are this one God, and yet each person exists at the same time, and is not each other. The father is not the son, or the holy spirit, and vice versa.

That is the Trinity in a nutshell, shown to you from the bible. Clearly expressed from the scriptures. Now off you go, back to your atheist websites for more talking points. scoot.

You did not give any passages that equate the Father, Son, and Spirit as one and the same God, equal in all aspects. You may be able to find verses that suggest that Jesus and the Father are one, but none that say the Father, Son, and Spirit are one and the same except for the Johannine Commae, a known scribe alteration of the original text.

Sparko
05-24-2016, 11:02 AM
You did not give any passages that equate the Father, Son, and Spirit as one and the same God, equal in all aspects. You may be able to find verses that suggest that Jesus and the Father are one, but none that say the Father, Son, and Spirit are one and the same except for the Johannine Commae, a known scribe alteration of the original text.

That is where LOGIC comes in. Notice the thread title? Your argument is idiotic. You expect an exact verse and even when you HAVE one, you claim it is an "alteration" - You don't need an exact verse. You have verses that say Jesus is God, Passages that say the Father is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. You have passages that say that Jesus is not the Father, or the Holy Spirit. You have passages that say there is ONE God.

Logically, the answer is that there are three distinct persons who are ONE God. That is what the bible teaches. That is the Trinity.

Gary
05-24-2016, 12:40 PM
That is where LOGIC comes in. Notice the thread title? Your argument is idiotic. You expect an exact verse and even when you HAVE one, you claim it is an "alteration" - You don't need an exact verse. You have verses that say Jesus is God, Passages that say the Father is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. You have passages that say that Jesus is not the Father, or the Holy Spirit. You have passages that say there is ONE God.

Logically, the answer is that there are three distinct persons who are ONE God. That is what the bible teaches. That is the Trinity.

Do you have a passage that says that the Holy Spirit and the Father are one and the same, equal in all things?

Sparko
05-24-2016, 12:55 PM
Do you have a passage that says that the Holy Spirit and the Father are one and the same, equal in all things?What? If they are both God, they would both have the same "powers" if that is what you are asking. They share one essence. Acts 5 says the Holy Spirit is God. If there is only ONE God then all persons who are God are equally this one God.

Look, whether you AGREE with the reasons and passages or not is irrelevant. You are not the arbiter of the faith and doctrine of the Christian church. I explained WHY Christians believe God is a Trinity and that the trinity is the only logical answer to the various claims in the bible about God. If you don't agree, who gives a fart? You are not even a Christian. Your interpretation of the bible doesn't matter.

Christianbookworm
05-24-2016, 01:37 PM
Why would anyone expect God to be like us mentally 100%? He's not a human, therefore it would be reasonable that He would not have a human psychology. Well, God the Son did incarnate, but that's a discussion for a different thread.

Gary
05-24-2016, 02:23 PM
What? If they are both God, they would both have the same "powers" if that is what you are asking. They share one essence. Acts 5 says the Holy Spirit is God. If there is only ONE God then all persons who are God are equally this one God.

Look, whether you AGREE with the reasons and passages or not is irrelevant. You are not the arbiter of the faith and doctrine of the Christian church. I explained WHY Christians believe God is a Trinity and that the trinity is the only logical answer to the various claims in the bible about God. If you don't agree, who gives a fart? You are not even a Christian. Your interpretation of the bible doesn't matter.

But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than any human authority.[d] 30 The God of our ancestors raised up Jesus, whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree. 31 God exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Savior that he might give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. 32 And we are witnesses to these things, and so is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey him.” ---Acts 5

Where in that passage does it say that the Holy Spirit is one and the same with God the Father?

shunyadragon
05-24-2016, 04:34 PM
There are lots of theophanies, Shuny, so God becoming a man is not a stretch. And that verse from Hosea was written before the incarnation, before the logos became flesh.

Before nor after, no difference. Human incarnation of God is not a concept of the OT. The claims of Theophanies in the OT are not specific enough to justify the concept of incarnate God in the OT.


There is nothing in the OT that eliminates the Trinity or God becoming flesh and taking on a second nature. The OT pretty much hints at it throughout. Especially in Isaiah.

Hints is better than the fancy word of theophanies here, and represent highly speculative interpretation, and do not justify the Doctrine of Reincarnation. Check with good sound Hebrew scripture in Isaiah by Jewish scholars, and you will find the references in over all context context cannot interpreted this way without a horrendous stretch of the imagination.

The concept of the Son of God in different references as used in the OT is a classic example. It fundamentally has no relationship in context of the use in the NT in reference to the Trinity.



These passages establish that the term "Son of God" is used in Jewish scripture to mean someone who is close to God, and in particular it is used for Jewish kings of the House of David. This explains why it was used for Jesus (peace be with him), who was of the House of David and the Messiah. Therefore, this helps to confirm the Islamic view, that Jesus (peace be with him) is NOT God, and that he wasn't considered to be God by his followers, who for example may have been the probably Jewish authors of the first three (synoptic) Gospels.

The term "Son of God" as used in Jewish scripture (such as for Solomon, peace be with him) has absolutely nothing to do with a person being God, or having any share in divinity. It is a metaphorical term meaning someone who is close to God.

Some important points to note are:

1. In the above passages, Solomon (peace be with him) is clearly indicated as being the "Son of God." This is most clear in the last passage quoted, in 1 Chronicles 28:6.

2. According to the Hebrew Bible, this is God Himself speaking. Therefore, Christian claims that God is supposed to have said directly that Jesus (peace be with him) was His Son means that Jesus (pbwh) was divine, have to also respond to the fact that here, Solomon (pbwh) is also stated by God to be His Son.

These passages from the Hebrew Bible clearly show that in Jewish usage, the term "Son of God" means nothing more than someone close to God. Therefore, if the early Christians also called Jesus (pbwh) the "Son of God," they would have meant it in a way consistent with the way the term is used in the Hebrew Bible, such as for Solomon (pbwh) in the passages above.

The early Christians were all Jews, and familiar with Jewish scripture. However, due to the efforts of Paul, after several decades the number of Gentile followers of Jesus (pbwh) continued to increase. These Gentile Christians did not have the knowledge of Jewish scripture which the Jewish Christians had, therefore they probably misinterpreted the term "Son of God" to mean Jesus (pbwh) was divine. This Gentile misunderstanding of Jewish terms has perpetuated into Christianity today, and is probably also partly responsible for the Christian doctrine of the Trinity.

The evidence is strong that Christian beliefs, as most Christians believe in them today, are not the beliefs of the earliest Christians, who were Jews and would have had a Jewish understanding of scripture. This is also the claim of Islam, and therefore the many statements of the Qur'an regarding Jesus (pbwh) seem to be supported, both by our investigations of early Christian history, and our investigations into terms such as "Son of God" in the Hebrew Bible.

Kbertsche
05-24-2016, 05:03 PM
But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than any human authority.[d] 30 The God of our ancestors raised up Jesus, whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree. 31 God exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Savior that he might give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. 32 And we are witnesses to these things, and so is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey him.” ---Acts 5

Where in that passage does it say that the Holy Spirit is one and the same with God the Father?
You have a strange Bible if Acts 5 starts with verse 29!
(Hint: compare Acts 5:3 to 5:5.)

Meh Gerbil
05-24-2016, 06:45 PM
Before nor after, no difference. Human incarnation of God is not a concept of the OT.

The same night he arose and took his two wives, his two female servants, and his eleven children, and crossed the ford of the Jabbok. He took them and sent them across the stream, and everything else that he had. And Jacob was left alone. And a man wrestled with him until the breaking of the day. When the man saw that he did not prevail against Jacob, he touched his hip socket, and Jacob's hip was put out of joint as he wrestled with him. Then he said, “Let me go, for the day has broken.” But Jacob said, “I will not let you go unless you bless me.” And he said to him, “What is your name?” And he said, “Jacob.” Then he said, “Your name shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel, for you have striven with God and with men, and have prevailed.” Then Jacob asked him, “Please tell me your name.” But he said, “Why is it that you ask my name?” And there he blessed him. So Jacob called the name of the place Peniel, saying, “For I have seen God face to face, and yet my life has been delivered.” The sun rose upon him as he passed Penuel, limping because of his hip. Therefore to this day the people of Israel do not eat the sinew of the thigh that is on the hip socket, because he touched the socket of Jacob's hip on the sinew of the thigh. -
— Genesis 32:22-32

Say whatever you want about the passage; however, one thing is clear: The OT doesn't seem to have much of a problem with a human incarnation of God.

shunyadragon
05-24-2016, 07:22 PM
The same night he arose and took his two wives, his two female servants, and his eleven children, and crossed the ford of the Jabbok. He took them and sent them across the stream, and everything else that he had. And Jacob was left alone. And a man wrestled with him until the breaking of the day. When the man saw that he did not prevail against Jacob, he touched his hip socket, and Jacob's hip was put out of joint as he wrestled with him. Then he said, “Let me go, for the day has broken.” But Jacob said, “I will not let you go unless you bless me.” And he said to him, “What is your name?” And he said, “Jacob.” Then he said, “Your name shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel, for you have striven with God and with men, and have prevailed.” Then Jacob asked him, “Please tell me your name.” But he said, “Why is it that you ask my name?” And there he blessed him. So Jacob called the name of the place Peniel, saying, “For I have seen God face to face, and yet my life has been delivered.” The sun rose upon him as he passed Penuel, limping because of his hip. Therefore to this day the people of Israel do not eat the sinew of the thigh that is on the hip socket, because he touched the socket of Jacob's hip on the sinew of the thigh. -
— Genesis 32:22-32

Say whatever you want about the passage; however, one thing is clear: The OT doesn't seem to have much of a problem with a human incarnation of God.

This definitely does not speak of the incarnation of God. It reveals a vision of Jacob. There is no person as God walking around earth as God before or after this vision by Jacob wrestling an angel.

Hosea 12:4 English Standard Version (ESV)

4 He strove with the angel and prevailed;
he wept and sought his favor.
He met God[a] at Bethel,
and there God spoke with us—

In the same book; Hosea 11-9 For I am God, and not a man.

No cigars nor brass ring for this one.

InspectorG
05-24-2016, 09:49 PM
Ive heard some compare the Trinity with the different states of Water: Ice, Fluid, and Vapor.

All still technically H2O but with different amounts of energy.

But it begs a question:

If a man can be 'elevated' to a God, and vice-versa, the energy would be measurable and likely either materialistic or leave indications on the material world where it came from and how it works.(measurable like heat/radiation/etc)

"Can God be illogical"?

Were he truly omnipotent, sure, by definition.

But that would further damage the claim that God is knowable and able to be communicated via symbols to other minds.

Experience would be the only meaningful criteria, but could the experience even be properly parsed for meaning by a human mind? Cue H.P. Lovecraft.

NorrinRadd
05-24-2016, 10:02 PM
What proof do you have that the Gospels were written by "Hebrews"?

Answer: none

I'm content with the consensus of scholars such as Craig Keener, Gordon Fee, and Ben Witherington that, except for Luke, the authors were Hebrews, or if you prefer, "Jews."

NorrinRadd
05-24-2016, 10:46 PM
There is no clear expression of a concept of a Trinity (three in one, coequal persons of the godhead) in the New Testament except for the Johannine Commae which is a known scribal alteration.

I know relatively few people whose primary Bible translations include that passage, at least as a normal part of the text. I have never seen it used as a primary evidence of the Trinity.

There are places such as 1 Cor. 12:4-6 and Eph. 4:4-6 where the parallel placement of God, Lord, and Spirit suggest the Trinity, but those are auxiliary rather than primary bases for the doctrine.

As I noted previously (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?10762-Is-The-Trinity-Logical&p=323524&viewfull=1#post323524), the Trinity doctrine is derived from the fact that the NT affirms the Shema, while separately also affirming that Father, Son, and Spirit each are "God," in some cases explicitly "I AM"; it is not explicit in any one passage, and I don't know anyone who claims that it is.

Meh Gerbil
05-25-2016, 05:18 AM
This definitely does not speak of the incarnation of God. It reveals a vision of Jacob.
You cannot wrestle with a vision, Shunyadragon.
Pray continue, watching you contort a clear reading of the text to shoehorn it into your world view is amusing.

Sparko
05-25-2016, 06:58 AM
But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than any human authority.[d] 30 The God of our ancestors raised up Jesus, whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree. 31 God exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Savior that he might give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. 32 And we are witnesses to these things, and so is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey him.” ---Acts 5

Where in that passage does it say that the Holy Spirit is one and the same with God the Father?

Oh so you think you are God now? :rofl:

Again, Your interpretation doesn't matter for the purposes of why Christians believe in a Trinity. Even if they are wrong about interpretation, the fact remains that Christians believe in the Trinity because of their interpretation of various verses taken as a whole. So arguing that the interpretation is wrong doesn't affect the fact that the Christian interpretation is the reason they believe in the Trinity does it?

Think of Global Warming. AGW adherents believe in AGW because of the interpretation of various trends and measurements in climate, correct? Well even if I could prove that their interpretations were wrong, it doesn't affect WHY they beleive in AGW. It might prove them wrong (If I was right) but my interpretation doesn't change the fact of their interpretation determining their belief.

Sparko
05-25-2016, 07:04 AM
Before nor after, no difference. Human incarnation of God is not a concept of the OT. The claims of Theophanies in the OT are not specific enough to justify the concept of incarnate God in the OT.



Hints is better than the fancy word of theophanies here, and represent highly speculative interpretation, and do not justify the Doctrine of Reincarnation. Check with good sound Hebrew scripture in Isaiah by Jewish scholars, and you will find the references in over all context context cannot interpreted this way without a horrendous stretch of the imagination.

The concept of the Son of God in different references as used in the OT is a classic example. It fundamentally has no relationship in context of the use in the NT in reference to the Trinity.



These passages establish that the term "Son of God" is used in Jewish scripture to mean someone who is close to God, and in particular it is used for Jewish kings of the House of David. This explains why it was used for Jesus (peace be with him), who was of the House of David and the Messiah. Therefore, this helps to confirm the Islamic view, that Jesus (peace be with him) is NOT God, and that he wasn't considered to be God by his followers, who for example may have been the probably Jewish authors of the first three (synoptic) Gospels.

The term "Son of God" as used in Jewish scripture (such as for Solomon, peace be with him) has absolutely nothing to do with a person being God, or having any share in divinity. It is a metaphorical term meaning someone who is close to God.

Some important points to note are:

1. In the above passages, Solomon (peace be with him) is clearly indicated as being the "Son of God." This is most clear in the last passage quoted, in 1 Chronicles 28:6.

2. According to the Hebrew Bible, this is God Himself speaking. Therefore, Christian claims that God is supposed to have said directly that Jesus (peace be with him) was His Son means that Jesus (pbwh) was divine, have to also respond to the fact that here, Solomon (pbwh) is also stated by God to be His Son.

These passages from the Hebrew Bible clearly show that in Jewish usage, the term "Son of God" means nothing more than someone close to God. Therefore, if the early Christians also called Jesus (pbwh) the "Son of God," they would have meant it in a way consistent with the way the term is used in the Hebrew Bible, such as for Solomon (pbwh) in the passages above.

The early Christians were all Jews, and familiar with Jewish scripture. However, due to the efforts of Paul, after several decades the number of Gentile followers of Jesus (pbwh) continued to increase. These Gentile Christians did not have the knowledge of Jewish scripture which the Jewish Christians had, therefore they probably misinterpreted the term "Son of God" to mean Jesus (pbwh) was divine. This Gentile misunderstanding of Jewish terms has perpetuated into Christianity today, and is probably also partly responsible for the Christian doctrine of the Trinity.

The evidence is strong that Christian beliefs, as most Christians believe in them today, are not the beliefs of the earliest Christians, who were Jews and would have had a Jewish understanding of scripture. This is also the claim of Islam, and therefore the many statements of the Qur'an regarding Jesus (pbwh) seem to be supported, both by our investigations of early Christian history, and our investigations into terms such as "Son of God" in the Hebrew Bible.

regardless of what modern jews believe, how does that change the reasoning of Christians in these matters? If Christians believe that the OT hints at an incarnation, how does the fact that modern jews disagree change the reasoning of Christians in the matter? It doesn't. We don't care what modern Jews think, or what Muslims think, or even what you think. We think you are all WRONG and we are correct. You and Gary both don't seem to get that. Your opinion, or that of modern Jews, doesn't matter to us. So using that to argue against Christian doctrine, like the Trinity is a waste of time. Your interpretations, the modern Jews interpretations, Gary's interpretations, they are all wrong and inconsequential to the doctrine of the Trinity and how and why it came about. It is a historical fact that it did, and so are the reasons behind it. Arguing about it now, 2000 years later will not change that in the least.

shunyadragon
05-25-2016, 05:05 PM
You cannot wrestle with a vision, Shunyadragon.

Oh yes you can particularly when it is angel.




Pray continue, watching you contort a clear reading of the text to shoehorn it into your world view is amusing.

Ask the Jewish scholars, and it is clear you are shoehorning your meaning into the citation.

Sparko
05-26-2016, 11:51 AM
You cannot wrestle with a vision, Shunyadragon.

Oh yes you can particularly when it is angel.

:twitch:

Insane Troll Logic at its finest

Christianbookworm
05-26-2016, 12:03 PM
:twitch:

Insane Troll Logic at its finest

Where did that phrase originate?

Sparko
05-26-2016, 12:09 PM
Where did that phrase originate?
The interwebz

Christianbookworm
05-26-2016, 12:10 PM
The interwebz

That's a mighty big place. Ye may as well say it arose from human imagination.

Sparko
05-26-2016, 12:13 PM
That's a mighty big place. Ye may as well say it arose from human imagination.yes

Christianbookworm
05-26-2016, 12:15 PM
yes

Did God mean for us to be easily... oh look! A squirrel!

shunyadragon
05-26-2016, 09:12 PM
:twitch:

Insane Troll Logic at its finest

I agree, Meh Gerbil's argument is in deep dodo based on the Hebrew scholars interpretation in their native language and historical precedence.

Sparko
05-27-2016, 05:32 AM
I agree, Meh Gerbil's argument is in deep dodo based on the Hebrew scholars interpretation in their native language and historical precedence.

umm no.

Insane troll logic is saying that someone can physically wrestle with a vision if it is an angel. So an angel is a "vision" and yet it is physical enough to wrestle with. Which means it is not a vision, but a physical being, completely making the point Gerbz was making, and you just stuck your foot in your own mouth, while thinking you destroyed Gerbz argument. Thus "Insane Troll Logic"

Meh Gerbil
05-27-2016, 05:45 AM
umm no.

Insane troll logic is saying that someone can physically wrestle with a vision if it is an angel. So an angel is a "vision" and yet it is physical enough to wrestle with. Which means it is not a vision, but a physical being, completely making the point Gerbz was making, and you just stuck your foot in your own mouth, while thinking you destroyed Gerbz argument. Thus "Insane Troll Logic"I try to be kind to Shunyadragon but he just hurts me at every possible opportunity.
I think it's how the Baha'i get their kicks.

Sparko
05-27-2016, 06:16 AM
I try to be kind to Shunyadragon but he just hurts me at every possible opportunity.
I think it's how the Baha'i get their kicks.It hurts my brain trying to untwist his posts.

shunyadragon
05-27-2016, 06:45 AM
I try to be kind to Shunyadragon but he just hurts me at every possible opportunity.
I think it's how the Baha'i get their kicks.

I also set out Gerbil traps, and make Gerbil lined gloves. They appear to love peanut butter and jelly.

shunyadragon
05-27-2016, 06:47 AM
umm no.

Insane troll logic is saying that someone can physically wrestle with a vision if it is an angel. So an angel is a "vision" and yet it is physical enough to wrestle with. Which means it is not a vision, but a physical being, completely making the point Gerbz was making, and you just stuck your foot in your own mouth, while thinking you destroyed Gerbz argument. Thus "Insane Troll Logic"

Jewish scholars wil disagree with you big time. The books are in their native tongue, and traditions.

Sparko
05-27-2016, 06:54 AM
Jewish scholars wil disagree with you big time. The books are in their native tongue, and traditions.No, they don't.

shunyadragon
05-28-2016, 04:24 PM
No, they don't.

Are you saying Jewish scholars believe Jacob wrestled with the 'incarnate God?' Jewish scholars do not believe in an incarnate God.



Rabbi Zoe Klein (hereafter RaZaK) offers a nuanced, elegant commentary on the verse "Now Jacob was left alone, and a man wrestled with him until the rise of dawn" (Genesis 32:25). Yet, I wish to suggest a davar acher , "another point of view" and alternative reading, which can serve as a counterpoint or a counterpart to RaZaK.

Jacob is left alone. There is no other being, divine or human, not wholly other and no holy brother. Jacob, perhaps for the first time in his life, is actually alone facing an opponent he cannot deceive ? himself. He looks at himself and confronts an ish, a "humane being," with whom he is unfamiliar and from whom he is alienated. Jacob is blessed with an opportunity to change his identity by coming to terms with a part of himself that he has suppressed. The Mishnah records a memorable aphorism attributed to Hillel: "In a place where there are no worthy persons, you be an ish [a worthy person]" (Pirkei Avot 2:5). The ish awakens inside Jacob when he is alone. Jewish ethics are three-dimensional. There is the relationship bein adam lamakom, "between ourselves and God," the relationship bein adam l'chevro, "between a person and another person," and bein adam l'atzmo, "between a person and him- or herself." Jacob's wrestling may be intrapersonal, and from it he emerges a changed human being.

After the incident at the Jabbok river, he is both Jacob and Israel. The two names and the identities they represent continue to struggle long after the biblical character dies. As the children of Jacob and the children of Israel, we bear witness to the perpetual, if not eternal wrestling match that involves selfishness and selflessness, deception and reflection, being a heel and being a hero. Maimonides, in the Guide of the Perplexed ( 2:42), provides support for this interpretation: "I say . . . of the story about Jacob in regard to its saying, 'And there was a man that wrestled with him' . . . all the wrestling and the conversation in question happened in the vision of prophecy."

RaZaK teaches that "it is possible to reconcile, that it doesn't take a miracle to heal the rift between siblings." I agree and propose that reconciliation can also take place within a person, the one who is and the one who is not yet, between the human being and the humane being that reside within the same person. Past memories and future hopes reside within each of us. Let them struggle and may hope prevail.

Rabbi Jan Katzew, Ph.D., is the former director of the Department of Lifelong Jewish Learning at the Union for Reform Judaism.

- See more at: http://www.reformjudaism.org/wrestling-man-not-angel#sthash.whbujJ2J.dpuf

shunyadragon
05-28-2016, 04:34 PM
Also . . .


This may be the reason that prompted Maimonides in The Guide For The Perplexed to declare that the wrestling match between Jacob and his unidentified attacker was not a reality, but rather, what he calls a prophetic vision.

It is regrettable that Maimonides did not elaborate and explain what, in his opinion, the message of this vision was. We, the readers, are therefore challenged to explore this point by ourselves.

In her book Wrestling with Angels

Naomi Rosenblatt assigned to this unnamed intruder the role of Jacob's father, Isaac, the enmity of his brother, Esau, and several other fears and memories assaulting Jacob. She thereby brilliantly reduced Jacob's adversary to a symbol of emotional regrets and fears and paved the road towards a better understanding of this episode.

However, the Bible was written long before Freud and the ensuing psychological insights. The peshat [plain meaning] of the Torah is addressed to an all-inclusive audience of its time, and cannot be expected to build on broad based psychological meanings. While there can be little doubt that allegoric writing is used in biblical stories, it can only be to a point where the average reader can instinctively absorb it with ease.

It is for this reason that I propose that the two adversaries in this fight are the symbolic representatives of two inner voices in Jacob: One that advocates the entry into the land which had been promised to his forefathers and to which he felt entitled; the other which advocates a prosperous life on the other
side of the border, thereby avoiding the dreaded warfare with his brother. A short review of the life of our protagonist will help us understand these contradictory feelings. Jacob had labored long and hard to reach the prosperity now in evidence. Subsequently, he had left Laban to return to the land which he considered to be his rightful inheritance. In his mind, the message from his brother Esau signaled an open contest for the land of his forebears. He was therefore confronted by two alternatives: To relinquish his claim for the land and live across its border in wealth and tranquility, or to insist on the acquisition of all or part of the promised land which was likely to lead to open and perhaps continual warfare with his brother.

No, Jewish scholars do not believe Jacob wrestled with the 'incarnate God.'

37818
05-28-2016, 04:45 PM
Are you saying Jewish scholars believe Jacob wrestled with the 'incarnate God?' Jewish scholars do not believe in an incarnate God.

Well it is a view that the reason for this is that those Jewish scholars really do not believe Moses or his writings. The Jewish temple which allowed them to at the very least give the appearance of believing them was destroyed 70CE. According to the prophet Daniel the temple would be destroyed after the Anointed One was killed (30CE or 33CE are Christian views when that had happend).

shunyadragon
05-28-2016, 05:15 PM
Well it is a view that the reason for this is that those Jewish scholars really do not believe Moses or his writings. The Jewish temple which allowed them to at the very least give the appearance of believing them was destroyed 70CE. According to the prophet Daniel the temple would be destroyed after the Anointed One was killed (30CE or 33CE are Christian views when that had happend).

Ok, this defines the difference between Christians and Jews. The answer is still clear, Jewish scholars DO NOT interpret Jacob wrestling with God.

Sparko
05-29-2016, 08:28 AM
Are you saying Jewish scholars believe Jacob wrestled with the 'incarnate God?' Jewish scholars do not believe in an incarnate God.



Rabbi Zoe Klein (hereafter RaZaK) offers a nuanced, elegant commentary on the verse "Now Jacob was left alone, and a man wrestled with him until the rise of dawn" (Genesis 32:25). Yet, I wish to suggest a davar acher , "another point of view" and alternative reading, which can serve as a counterpoint or a counterpart to RaZaK.

Jacob is left alone. There is no other being, divine or human, not wholly other and no holy brother. Jacob, perhaps for the first time in his life, is actually alone facing an opponent he cannot deceive ? himself. He looks at himself and confronts an ish, a "humane being," with whom he is unfamiliar and from whom he is alienated. Jacob is blessed with an opportunity to change his identity by coming to terms with a part of himself that he has suppressed. The Mishnah records a memorable aphorism attributed to Hillel: "In a place where there are no worthy persons, you be an ish [a worthy person]" (Pirkei Avot 2:5). The ish awakens inside Jacob when he is alone. Jewish ethics are three-dimensional. There is the relationship bein adam lamakom, "between ourselves and God," the relationship bein adam l'chevro, "between a person and another person," and bein adam l'atzmo, "between a person and him- or herself." Jacob's wrestling may be intrapersonal, and from it he emerges a changed human being.

After the incident at the Jabbok river, he is both Jacob and Israel. The two names and the identities they represent continue to struggle long after the biblical character dies. As the children of Jacob and the children of Israel, we bear witness to the perpetual, if not eternal wrestling match that involves selfishness and selflessness, deception and reflection, being a heel and being a hero. Maimonides, in the Guide of the Perplexed ( 2:42), provides support for this interpretation: "I say . . . of the story about Jacob in regard to its saying, 'And there was a man that wrestled with him' . . . all the wrestling and the conversation in question happened in the vision of prophecy."

RaZaK teaches that "it is possible to reconcile, that it doesn't take a miracle to heal the rift between siblings." I agree and propose that reconciliation can also take place within a person, the one who is and the one who is not yet, between the human being and the humane being that reside within the same person. Past memories and future hopes reside within each of us. Let them struggle and may hope prevail.

Rabbi Jan Katzew, Ph.D., is the former director of the Department of Lifelong Jewish Learning at the Union for Reform Judaism.

- See more at: http://www.reformjudaism.org/wrestling-man-not-angel#sthash.whbujJ2J.dpuf

they believed in theophanies. physical representations of God on earth.

shunyadragon
05-29-2016, 11:23 AM
they believed in theophanies. physical representations of God on earth.

Need better explanations than this assertion. They do not believe Joshua wrestled with an 'incarnate God.'The did not believe in an 'incarnate' God on earth. You need to more explanatory on what you are asserting the theophanies as the 'physical representations of God on earth' Jews believe in. For example; Some may consider the burning bush that spoke to Moses as a theophany, but no cigar nor brass ring on this one concerning the Christian claim of representing an 'incarnate God' on earth.

Sparko
05-30-2016, 07:00 AM
Need better explanations than this assertion. They do not believe Joshua wrestled with an 'incarnate God.'The did not believe in an 'incarnate' God on earth. You need to more explanatory on what you are asserting the theophanies as the 'physical representations of God on earth' Jews believe in. For example; Some may consider the burning bush that spoke to Moses as a theophany, but no cigar nor brass ring on this one concerning the Christian claim of representing an 'incarnate God' on earth.they believed that Joshua wrestled with a physical being, not an illusion. and the being he wrestled with was God. thus you are wrong. and even if it were an angel it was still a physical being, and not an illusion.

shunyadragon
05-30-2016, 07:09 AM
they believed that Joshua wrestled with a physical being, not an illusion. and the being he wrestled with was God. thus you are wrong. and even if it were an angel it was still a physical being, and not an illusion.

I gave the citations by Jewish references. It you disagree, do not provide your groundless sources, cite Jewish sources and scholars. Absolutely no, the Jews do not consider it necessarily even a physical being.

You need to more explanatory on what you are asserting the theophanies as the 'physical representations of God on earth' Jews believe in.

Sparko
05-30-2016, 07:42 AM
I gave the citations by Jewish references. It you disagree, do not provide your groundless sources, cite Jewish sources and scholars. Absolutely no, the Jews do not consider it necessarily even a physical being.

You need to more explanatory on what you are asserting the theophanies as the 'physical representations of God on earth' Jews believe in.your quote didnt say what you thought it did, and the bible disagrees with you. And there are several other instances in the bible when God and even Angels appeared in physical bodies, like when God came to visit Abraham and Sarah. or when God showed his back to Moses.

and if you want to show what Jews believed, you will need to show that from sources written a few thousand years ago, not what some some odd one thinks today.

37818
05-30-2016, 08:53 AM
Ok, this defines the difference between Christians and Jews. The answer is still clear, Jewish scholars DO NOT interpret Jacob wrestling with God.

". . . And Jacob said: 'O God of my father Abraham, and God of my father Isaac, O LORD, who saidst unto me: Return unto thy country, and to thy kindred, and I will do thee good; . . . . . . And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day. And when he saw that he prevailed not against him, he touched the hollow of his thigh; and the hollow of Jacob's thigh was strained, as he wrestled with him. And he said: 'Let me go, for the day breaketh.' And he said: 'I will not let thee go, except thou bless me.' And he said unto him: 'What is thy name?' And be said: 'Jacob.' And he said: 'Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel; for thou hast striven with God and with men, and hast prevailed.' And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: 'for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.' . . ." -- Genesis 32:10, . . . 24-31. -- The Holy Scriptures, Jewish Publication Society 1917, (OT verses 32:9, . . . 23-30)

". . . So he strove with an angel, and prevailed; he wept, and made supplication unto him; at Beth-el he would find him, and there he would speak with us; But the LORD, the God of hosts, the LORD is His name. . . ." -- Hosea 12:5-6. -- The Holy Scriptures, Jewish Publication Society 1917, (OT verses 12:4-5)

In the Christian NT Jesus is cited to have claimed ". . . For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me . . . . " -- John 5:46.

shunyadragon
05-31-2016, 05:58 AM
your quote didnt say what you thought it did, and the bible disagrees with you. And there are several other instances in the bible when God and even Angels appeared in physical bodies, like when God came to visit Abraham and Sarah. or when God showed his back to Moses.

and if you want to show what Jews believed, you will need to show that from sources written a few thousand years ago, not what some some odd one thinks today.

Bogus argument, and yes my references do support what I proposed. None of the above support theophanies of an 'incarnate God.' Yes, they can be interpreted easily as spiritual appearances of God on earth. Nothing here in these references indicates a man claiming to be the 'incarnate God' being born living and dying on earth.

You have yet to site any Jewish scholar sources that support your interpretation in Judaism. The fact remains Jewish scholars do not support these theophanies as representations nor appearances of an 'incarnate God.'

Still waiting . . .

Sparko
05-31-2016, 06:32 AM
Bogus argument, and yes my references do support what I proposed. None of the above support theophanies of an 'incarnate God.' Yes, they can be interpreted easily as spiritual appearances of God on earth. Nothing here in these references indicates a man claiming to be the 'incarnate God' being born living and dying on earth.

You have yet to site any Jewish scholar sources that support your interpretation in Judaism. The fact remains Jewish scholars do not support these theophanies as representations nor appearances of an 'incarnate God.'

Still waiting . . .Did anyone claim that the Jews believed that God was going to come to earth as Jesus? No. We have said that there are clues in the OT that the jews did not recognize, but we do because of hindsight. Many prophesies are not clear until after the fact.

And the theophanies were physical. That is clear from the verses. Nobody is saying that those were incarnations.

shunyadragon
05-31-2016, 12:13 PM
Did anyone claim that the Jews believed that God was going to come to earth as Jesus? No.

Not the issue here.



We have said that there are clues in the OT that the jews did not recognize, but we do because of hindsight. Many prophesies are not clear until after the fact.

Clues are not adequate to substantiate your assertions. Interpretations after the fact are obvious interpreted to fit.


And the theophanies were physical. That is clear from the verses. Nobody is saying that those were incarnations.

If they are not physical they are not incarnations.
It is not clear the theophanies are physical. The Jews as cited do not support your assertions.

Still waiting . . .

Sparko
05-31-2016, 12:24 PM
It is not clear the theophanies are physical. The Jews as cited do not support your assertions.

Still waiting . . .

Read Genesis 18. Theophanies eat food. Sounds physical to me. Whether we are talking about the LORD or his Angels. They are not mere visions. They are physical bodies that can eat food. The difference is that these are created bodies, not a body that was born of a woman, as in the case of the Incarnation.

shunyadragon
05-31-2016, 12:34 PM
Read Genesis 18. Theophanies eat food. Sounds physical to me. Whether we are talking about the LORD or his Angels. They are not mere visions. They are physical bodies that can eat food. The difference is that these are created bodies, not a body that was born of a woman, as in the case of the Incarnation.

Contradiction physical bodies would be incarnations.

Sparko
05-31-2016, 12:53 PM
Contradiction physical bodies would be incarnations.OK then. they were temporary incarnations if you want to quibble definitions. same point. they were not merely visions, they were physical. Call them what you want.

Meh Gerbil
05-31-2016, 12:58 PM
Contradiction physical bodies would be incarnations.
In Genesis 18 an incarnation of the Lord has His feet washed and He is fed.
The incarnation is identified as God.

shunyadragon
05-31-2016, 07:52 PM
In Genesis 18 an incarnation of the Lord has His feet washed and He is fed.
The incarnation is identified as God.

I have been referring to Jewish scholars understanding of these theophanies. I need references/

Still waiting . . .

shunyadragon
05-31-2016, 07:53 PM
OK then. they were temporary incarnations if you want to quibble definitions. same point. they were not merely visions, they were physical. Call them what you want.

I have been referring to Jewish scholars understanding of these theophanies. I need references/

Still waiting . . .

Kbertsche
06-01-2016, 02:00 AM
I have been referring to Jewish scholars understanding of these theophanies. I need references/

Still waiting . . .
FYI, here are a couple of Jewish sources on Gen 18:1:

1. The LORD APPEARED TO HIM This is the only example of this formula being used without some verbal declaration immediately following. Here, it seems to be a general statement followed by a detailed description of theophany or divine self-revelation, mediated in this instance through angelic messengers. Unlike the previous theophanies, this one is not accompanied by an act of worship or the building of an altar; in actual fact, hospitality to strangers itself becomes an act of worship. As the Talmud puts it, “Hospitality to wayfarers is greater than welcoming the Divine Presence” (Shab. 127a)


18:1–2: The relationship of the Lord to the men is unclear. Perhaps, as in some Canaanite literature, we are to imagine a deity accompanied by his two attendants (cf. 22:2).

Meh Gerbil
06-01-2016, 03:59 AM
I have been referring to Jewish scholars understanding of these theophanies. I need references/
Still waiting . . .
You aren't asking for sources, you're asking for sources that you know have a predisposition to deny a physical appearance of God because of their opposition to Christianity. Any honest reading of that text makes it clear that if the appearance is getting a foot washing, is eating, is being heard by more than one person that a physical appearance has occurred. By the way, if you were the one arguing in favor of a physical appearance you'd of pulled out the fact that physical manifestations of deities was a common part of ancient culture - since you believe that religions 'evolve'.

The fact you've been backed into a corner illustrates that you've got nothing here.
Nobody is buying your redirect here.

Sparko
06-01-2016, 06:07 AM
You aren't asking for sources, you're asking for sources that you know have a predisposition to deny a physical appearance of God because of their opposition to Christianity. Any honest reading of that text makes it clear that if the appearance is getting a foot washing, is eating, is being heard by more than one person that a physical appearance has occurred. By the way, if you were the one arguing in favor of a physical appearance you'd of pulled out the fact that physical manifestations of deities was a common part of ancient culture - since you believe that religions 'evolve'.

The fact you've been backed into a corner illustrates that you've got nothing here.
Nobody is buying your redirect here.

He is in "ignore everything and repeat" mode now. There is no getting through to him.

16099

firstfloor
06-02-2016, 02:45 PM
1: Is there any way the Trinity could be said to be logical?Yes: The Trinity, also known as the One True God, is the name given a committee of three Gods. The chairman is the Father, the Son and the Spirit are functionaries that carry out the orders of the Father.

One Bad Pig
06-02-2016, 05:12 PM
Yes: The Trinity, also known as the One True God, is the name given a committee of three Gods. The chairman is the Father, the Son and the Spirit are functionaries that carry out the orders of the Father.
I knew we could count on you to get it wrong. :thumb:

logician bones
06-02-2016, 07:49 PM
You need to more explanatory

Just needed to take a moment to honor this AWESOME typo. I assume it was a typo. :P

*finally stops laughing* Ahem.


Anyways... Short answer to this topic is yes, it's logical. And no, it isn't really hard to understand. Longer answer -- I wish people would stop saying things like "it's beyond our ability to understand." Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but that's just an assumption. Obviously God, being infinite, is never going to be completely in our ability to fully understand. But if you make a blind assumption about what details you can't understand, and close yourself off to trying... well, that's probably a big part of why you fail. :P

I've never really understood what people find tricky about it. While if you ask "what's the best analogy for it?", that IS really tricky, the concept itself is simple and doesn't need analogies really. Let's face it. Why should things absolutely need analogies? Three distinct persons, in one being. Simple. Just read what the Bible says on it. If you just do that -- ALL of it -- it becomes clear. God kinda knew what he was doing when he inspired the Bible. It's like understanding a wheel. I don't need an analogy to something else rolling to understand it. Hey... I just made a Trinity analogy that actually works?! But not really. :P

Also, to the guy who said "3 never equals 1" -- well, that's not even true in BASIC math -- since the "units" are different; three Persons equals one God, not three Gods equals one God. Four quarters can equal one dollar, right? But even with the same concept (I wouldn't call this "units" literally!), that isn't always true. R=255, G=255, B=255. Three colors equals one color. :) (Again, not meant as a Trinity analogy, but an example that falsifies that one argument against the Trinity.)

As for ex nihilo, I've been over that in detail in a prior topic; basically, it isn't meant literally as absolutely nothing. (Or at least, the version of it that isn't meant that literally is logical. One that was completely literal would be illogical.) It just means not made out of eternally existing normal materials; the normal matter was made out of something else that is basically nothing like it, at the start of linear time. There was a distinction in the sources including the Bible between "things that are unseen" and things seen; the latter is what would be called "thing" in this sense. Similar to how we'll say, "Oh, it's nothing"; meaning something isn't significant enough in a particular quality to count as in a category in consideration. So, whatever God used to make the original matter wasn't like matter. (Which fits with what we know about matter/energy conversion and so forth.)