Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 789
Results 81 to 84 of 84

Thread: Question about the Trinity

  1. #81
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    41,460
    Amen (Given)
    3891
    Amen (Received)
    19054
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrawnus View Post
    I don't doubt that either. But it's that very "something that exists" which the word being denotes. Just because it doesn't make it easier to understand doesn't mean it isn't true.

    That doesn't mean there isn't more to it than that, however. But that would require one to introduce the concept of essence (the thing that makes something that something, i.e it's nature) and how in God essence has actual existence, which is his being.

    But I'm not sure how saying that being in the statement "God is three persons in one being" is the same as essence, which is the same as "that which makes God, God" is going to help Jaxb clear up his confusion.
    well first of all "God is three persons in one being" is not correct. It is "one God, revealed in three persons" - your sentence describes one being being composed of 3 persons as in 1/3 of each.

    I don't recall any ancient creed even using "being"

  2. #82
    tWebber Chrawnus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Finland
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,216
    Amen (Given)
    4694
    Amen (Received)
    2997
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    well first of all "God is three persons in one being" is not correct. It is "one God, revealed in three persons" - your sentence describes one being being composed of 3 persons as in 1/3 of each.

    I don't recall any ancient creed even using "being"
    I think homoousia can be translated as "one in being".

    Tbh I think it's more common to use the word "essence" rather than "being", so it would be "Thee person sharing (fully) in one essence". But in classical theism God's "essence" and "being" are one, so the words can be used interchangeably atleast in some contexts.

    But I do agree that saying "God is three persons in one being" can open you up to misinterpretation unless you specify that all of the persons share fully in the Divine Being/Essence, and not just in 1/3rd of it each.

  3. #83
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    41,460
    Amen (Given)
    3891
    Amen (Received)
    19054
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrawnus View Post
    I think homoousia can be translated as "one in being".

    Tbh I think it's more common to use the word "essence" rather than "being", so it would be "Thee person sharing (fully) in one essence". But in classical theism God's "essence" and "being" are one, so the words can be used interchangeably atleast in some contexts.

    But I do agree that saying "God is three persons in one being" can open you up to misinterpretation unless you specify that all of the persons share fully in the Divine Being/Essence, and not just in 1/3rd of it each.
    the original argument by joel was that the ancient greeks used "being" to mean "something that exists" - as if he were explaining why 'being' should be interpreted that way now, but in fact, I don't know of any ancient descriptions of the Trinity that used "being" - they used "essence" as you pointed out. And "essence" isn't even a physical property like "something that exists" would be. So again, it was not helpful to explain the trinity. That was my original point.

    Being in this thread is just someone trying to explain that there is one God (a being or entity that is singular and unique) who is revealed in three persons.

  4. #84
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,325
    Amen (Given)
    156
    Amen (Received)
    462
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    the original argument by joel was that the ancient greeks used "being" to mean "something that exists" - as if he were explaining why 'being' should be interpreted that way now, but in fact, I don't know of any ancient descriptions of the Trinity that used "being" - they used "essence" as you pointed out.
    We may need to find out what is the history of "one being". Perhaps it isn't as old as I thought.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •