Interpretation the Trinity is polytheistic

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I cannot believe that you posted that response. Your reading comprehension is normally better than that

I am responding to what Christian 3 wrote, namely, "God isn't a man; God is spirit." That has unmistakeable echoes of Docetism.

[Christian3]

[QUOTE=shunyadragon;n1196210][QUOTE=Christian3;n1196200]

Then you do not believe in the Trinity?

The Trinity teaches that there is only one God.

[shunyadragon]

[QUOTE=Christian3;n1196234][QUOTE=shunyadragon;n1196210]

The Trinity teaches that there is only one God.

No, it teaches three persons in one God, and Jesus Christ is the Incarnate Sone of God. Jesus is described as distinctly separate seated on the right hand of God the Father. Your omitting a few key details.

[Christian3]

[QUOTE=shunyadragon;n1196260][QUOTE=Christian3;n1196234]

No, it teaches three persons in one God, and Jesus Christ is the Incarnate Sone of God. Jesus is described as distinctly separate seated on the right hand of God the Father. Your omitting a few key details.

It is well past time for you to tell us what you think "persons" means.

[mikewhitney]

I am responding to what Christian 3 wrote, namely, "God isn't a man; God is spirit." That has unmistakeable echoes of Docetism.

The context of the discussion does not make Docetism a likely concern here. So you do not have to worry that the Trinity doctrine is being threatened.

[shunyadragon]

[QUOTE=Christian3;n1196263][QUOTE=shunyadragon;n1196260]

It is well past time for you to tell us what you think "persons" means.

As it is in the English language: an individual ..

Still waiting . . .

No, it teaches three persons in one God, and Jesus Christ is the Incarnate Son of God. Jesus is described as distinctly separate seated on the right hand of God the Father. Your omitting a few key details.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

The context of the discussion does not make Docetism a likely concern here. So you do not have to worry that the Trinity doctrine is being threatened.

If "God isn't a man; God is spirit." where does that leave your anthropomorphic deity? What Christian 3 wrote reflects the view held by some in the first two centuries CE that Jesus was a spiritual power of God who only "seemed" to have flesh and humanity, but in reality was a pure spirit, emitting a fleshly epiphany on earth.

[mikewhitney]

[QUOTE=shunyadragon;n1196260][QUOTE=Christian3;n1196234]

No, it teaches three persons in one God, and Jesus Christ is the Incarnate Sone of God. Jesus is described as distinctly separate seated on the right hand of God the Father. Your omitting a few key details.

I would think you would know the Trinitarian doctrine by now. The Trinitarian doctrine recognizes there is one God in three persons. The CARM website (https://carm.org/trinity-philosophic...ction-question) makes the distinction between "being" and "person." So God is one being in three persons.

God does not have to conform to your anthropomorphic conceptions and limitations. It would sort of be odd if He did.

[Christian3]

[QUOTE=shunyadragon;n1196294][QUOTE=Christian3;n1196263]

As it is in the English language: an individual ..

Still waiting . . .

No, it teaches three persons in one God, and Jesus Christ is the Incarnate Son of God. Jesus is described as distinctly separate seated on the right hand of God the Father. Your omitting a few key details.

Do you think "person" means two other beings in one being?

Do you think three "persons" means three people like Tom, Dick and Harry?

[thormas]

[QUOTE=Tassman;n1196138][QUOTE=Christian3;n1195895]

According to the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union Jesus is simultaneously fully God and fully man - so yes God is also a man.

It is and has been a perplexing doctrine to try to explain.

Although seeing it in writing that "God is also a man" really brings the perplexity home. One has to wonder (and not simply resort to 'it's a mystery'), how can the infinite God be a man who by definition is finite?

I have been intrigued by Spong's idea that God is a verb. And this would then suggest that God is not simply love but rather that God is (also) the loving. Essence is existence: what God is 'is' what God does.

We know that man is 'unfinished' and he must 'do something' in order to be. Man is called to do what God does (loving) and thus he (in some real way) is what God is (loving). So, in Jesus we have a man 'doing' divinity and in so doing, man is (becomes) 'fully human' by being (doing) 'fully divine.'

Just a thought.

[shunyadragon]

[QUOTE=Christian3;n1196299][QUOTE=shunyadragon;n1196294]

Do you think "person" means two other beings in one being?

Do you think three "persons" means three people like Tom, Dick and Harry?

Three persons means three persons as in Father, Son and Holy Spirit, with Jesus Christ seated at the right hand of God the Father.

[thormas]

[QUOTE=Christian3;n1196299][QUOTE=shunyadragon;n1196294]

Do you think "person" means two other beings in one being?

Do you think three "persons" means three people like Tom, Dick and Harry?

As you suggest, persons in the ancient formulation is not what we mean by persons. John Macquarrie in his Principles of Christian Theology calls the 3: Primordial Being, Expressive Being and Unitive Being and refers to the 3 persons as the 3 timeless movements of God.

[shunyadragon]

[QUOTE=mikewhitney;n1196298][QUOTE=shunyadragon;n1196260]

I would think you would know the Trinitarian doctrine by now. The Trinitarian doctrine recognizes there is one God in three persons. The CARM website (https://carm.org/trinity-philosophic...ction-question) makes the distinction between "being" and "person." So God is one being in three persons.

God does not have to conform to your anthropomorphic conceptions and limitations. It would sort of be odd if He did.

I was raised in the Roman Church and know full well all the versions of different sources trying to explain the Trinity. It is three persons; the Father. Son and Holy Spirit with Jesus Christ seated on the right hand of God, very very anthropomorphic.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Do you think "person" means two other beings in one being?

Do you think three "persons" means three people like Tom, Dick and Harry?

This is where all the confusion arose. The Neoplatonist ideas that underpinned the later construct of a Triune deity had all been developed in non-Christian contexts [and even in those their meanings were not indisputably defined]. The real problem came with making use of Greek philosophy, the only language sophisticated enough for such debates and key terms such ousia, homoousios, hypostasis and logos could not be easily be reformulated to deal with specific Christian issues such as the precise nature of Jesus and his relationship with God the Father.

Furthermore, formulating these concepts in two languages, Latin and Greek, when there was no strict equivalence between them further complicated the situation. Latin theologians translated the Greek ousia as substantia, but the Greeks translatedsubstantia as hypostasis,
“personality.”

So when the Latins talked of una substantia, in the sense of one divine substance [within which might be found the distinct personalities of the Trinity], it appeared in Greek as if they were affirming that there was only one hypostasis for the three persons of the Trinity, in effect preaching what would later be considered as heresy.

[mikewhitney]

I was raised in the Roman Church and know full well all the versions of different sources trying to explain the Trinity. It is three persons; the Father. Son and Holy Spirit with Jesus Christ seated on the right hand of God, very very anthropomorphic.

I should have said anthropocentric or some other term to emphasize man's limitations of understanding the infinite God. Of course, many aspects are in terms of mankind but we cannot limit to our own humanity. Sorry for the confusion.