Is the trinity fruitful?

[mastralvarado]

Hello and welcome Trinitarians and Non-trinitarians alike:

I have a question for Trinitarians:

Is G-d explicitly parallel (dependant) to the universe or not parallel (independant)?

You have three choices:
a) G-d is independant of the universe (i.e. the Universe is not G-d's function nor G-d's essence)
b) G-d is dependant on the universe (G-d's function) and vice-versa
c) G-d is the universe (God's Essence and function)


Rules:
a) I will not respond to anyone who is atheist or that questions my beliefs.
b) Trinitrian doctrine is not in question (there are plenty of other threads to discuss that).
c) G-d can be a any name that describes the one and only omnipersonal omnipotent, omniscient, omniscient conscience.

My position as a non-trinitarian (Muslim):

First, G-d is not the Universe because the universe contains/possesses idiotic(stupid) beings such as pan-troglodytes and similar (made implicitly in the image of G-d). If I agreed that G-d was dependant of the universe, then I would not be far from concluding that the universe is limited in any respect or vice-versa. I believe that G-d is independent of the universe. That way, I cannot possibly attribute anything limited to G-d only describe unlimited attributes such as Mercy, Sovereignty, Clemency, Power, Wealth, Wisdom, Strength, Honour, Glory, Worship, and many more.

Second, the FINAL REVELATION OF G-D the Al'karim Al'Quran explicitly says:

22 Say (O Muhammad): Call upon those whom ye set up beside Allah! They possess not an atom's weight either in the heavens or in the earth, nor have they any share in either, nor hath He an auxiliary among them.*

Trinitarians, in my understanding, attribute 100% manhood and 100% Divinity to Jesus (explicitly). This conclusion can only imply that the universe is 100% matter and 100% Divine. Thus, G-d's intervention in the Big-Bang Theory to ignite the chain-of-events that lead up to the resulting universe we know and live in today can only be, from a trinitarian perspective, hypocritical and contradicting.

Even as, the Holy spirit is equated to having 100% spirit and 100% Divine, What this would imply is that there is a third parallel spiritual universe in addition to the physical universe. Where no proof of has been made available to the scientific comunity as something other than matter at low density levels.

My position is: Jesus si 100% man and 100% microcosm. On the other hand, G-d is 100% G-d and not cosmos.

Do you have any mathematical formulae/scripture that can inequivocally describe/equate G-d as a Being that contains/possesses a three-in-one parallel existence explicitly as I have*?

[staylor2233]

Hello ,

I'm not a Trinitarian , yet , your question is interesting to me . My position is in one creator of everything that is , everwhere at once on every plain of existence . Nothing unknown . This very belief is un-fathomable to me , yet I'm granted a great peace in the continuous conemplation of it . Hence , I must go with your option "C"

[mastralvarado]

Are you implying that if the Big-bang theory is true, then G-d was the dense ball of mass and therefore had a beginning? Or are you implying that G-d was not always the universe and that He became the universe at one point in eternity/infinity? Could this be the famous crucifixion event?
I have to be honest with you, I find it hard to believe. But I respect your opinion and wish you well in finding what you are looking for in this forum.

Thanks for your reply.

[spitndirt]

Hello and welcome Trinitarians and Non-trinitarians alike:

I have a question for Trinitarians:

Is G-d explicitly parallel (dependant) to the universe or not parallel (independant)?

You have three choices:
a) G-d is independant of the universe (i.e. the Universe is not G-d's function nor G-d's essence)
b) G-d is dependant on the universe (G-d's function) and vice-versa
c) G-d is the universe (God's Essence and function)


Rules:
a) I will not respond to anyone who is atheist or that questions my beliefs.
b) Trinitrian doctrine is not in question (there are plenty of other threads to discuss that).
c) G-d can be a any name that describes the one and only omnipersonal omnipotent, omniscient, omniscient conscience.

My position as a non-trinitarian (Muslim):

First, G-d is not the Universe because the universe contains/possesses idiotic(stupid) beings such as pan-troglodytes and similar (made implicitly in the image of G-d). If I agreed that G-d was dependant of the universe, then I would not be far from concluding that the universe is limited in any respect or vice-versa. I believe that G-d is independent of the universe. That way, I cannot possibly attribute anything limited to G-d only describe unlimited attributes such as Mercy, Sovereignty, Clemency, Power, Wealth, Wisdom, Strength, Honour, Glory, Worship, and many more.

Second, the FINAL REVELATION OF G-D the Al'karim Al'Quran explicitly says:

Trinitarians, in my understanding, attribute 100% manhood and 100% Divinity to Jesus (explicitly). This conclusion can only imply that the universe is 100% matter and 100% Divine. Thus, G-d's intervention in the Big-Bang Theory to ignite the chain-of-events that lead up to the resulting universe we know and live in today can only be, from a trinitarian perspective, hypocritical and contradicting.

Even as, the Holy spirit is equated to having 100% spirit and 100% Divine, What this would imply is that there is a third parallel spiritual universe in addition to the physical universe. Where no proof of has been made available to the scientific comunity as something other than matter at low density levels.

My position is: Jesus si 100% man and 100% microcosm. On the other hand, G-d is 100% G-d and not cosmos.

Do you have any mathematical formulae/scripture that can inequivocally describe/equate G-d as a Being that contains/possesses a three-in-one parallel existence explicitly as I have*?

What you are asking is impossible since God is one...period. Prior to creation God is....that's it. Since God is God prior to the universe He must necessarily be independent of it. And yet God created and now sustains all things within creation. Thus He is 'bound' in certain ways on this side of the beginning.....like, by His own Word. The 'Word of God' becomes a mediator between God and the objects of His creation. Where there is only God there is no need for 'Word' - because of Gods 'omni' attributes. The word is brought forth for creation and creation for the Word. The one loses all meaning and purpose without the other.

Parallel existences of three distinct infinites is impossible since that would require 'borders' that distinguish between them. But borders signify finiteness.....and where the finite ends the infinite begins.

My views at this point in time.....

[mastralvarado]

What you are asking is impossible since God is one...period. Prior to creation God is....that's it. Since God is God prior to the universe He must necessarily be independent of it. And yet God created and now sustains all things within creation. Thus He is 'bound' in certain ways on this side of the beginning.....like, by His own Word. The 'Word of God' becomes a mediator between God and the objects of His creation. Where there is only God there is no need for 'Word' - because of Gods 'omni' attributes. The word is brought forth for creation and creation for the Word. The one loses all meaning and purpose without the other.

Parallel existences of three distinct infinites is impossible since that would require 'borders' that distinguish between them. But borders signify finiteness.....and where the finite ends the infinite begins.

My views at this point in time.....

You are saying that G-d created the dense, super hot ball of mass that used to be the universe. I can live with that :smile:.

But if G-d was independent of the universe, then that means that even before creation there was only one infinite G-d and one not so infinite universe. So this is what I mean: Where did this extra infinity of the trinity come from? If G-d is independent then where is the proof of the spiritual universe? That Jesus was with G-d even before the universe was created, I will not object for argument's sake, but where did the Holy Spirit (a.k.a the force) come from?

If it was biblically well-founded that the Spirit comes from G-d to intercede does this mean that he is the mediator and not the Son? If both mediator and interceder are at work then, wouldn't there be a conflict between them?

Think of it like this:

"A child has a pool of sand and he begins to create something." The child is an anthropomorphism of G-d and the sand is metaphor for the universe or the microcosm.

If that child takes a piece of sand into him to veil him from the created then His identity as to the created has become a god because in no way can the mediator be the creator.

Look at it like this:

Can a bolt of lightning travel throught the atmosphere from point "a" to point "b" without there being an opposite attraction? The interceder would intercede as an for example a lightining rod.

In my opinion:
So if the Creator has veiled Himself in sand (as with Jesus the mediator), then the positive definition of the Creator would be opposing to what explicit scripture says.

"Hear, O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord is one! (Deuteronomy 6:4)

Link (http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/onegod.php)

As for my explicit example from the Qur'an I include it so that you may ponder over how explicit the words are. I could take from biblical texts some mentions of the oneness of G-d and these are all positive statements made in an explicit sense. Does, for example, the Bible include any statement that mentions in a single explicit paragraph, the opposite of what is the non-trinitarian (Islamic)?

Example:
Where does G-d explicitly say in any text that is trinitarian-approved:

"He (the L-rd) has a mediator that possesses weight of the heaven and of the earth, and has a share of, and is an auxilary mediator among them."

No such text exists. This is why this task is impossible in monotheistic religion. This is why the trinity can't be disproven literary because no such explicit text that approves it exists. The Qur'an disproves it but the trinitarians reject the Qur'an.

Therefore, if you believe that G-d is independent and also believe that there has to be a mediator between the communicator and the receptor then, you may be right; but if you believe that that Communicator has taken up a limited mediator (spirit/Jesus/atmosphere) as an indispensable "x" of Him, then the Oneness of G-d becomes analog (to the receptor's limited mind) and no longer is communication is possible.

In my view:
Not an atom's weight of matter can be considered G-d; this is not an agnostic view of things, because matter is G-d's playground and can be converted into energy and vice-versa energy into matter. It is also, in no way related to the un-fathomable except as a mirror through which G-d's reflection can be observed through implicit means. A filter could also be used, who knows (Allah knows best)?

If a Jew told me that Moses saw G-d I would say that he could have seen the reflection or filter of G-d but not G-d directly for who can stand and look at him directly and live?

I can understand that what you mean when you say that He is bounded (by the affinity to His creation); after all, He is the First and the Last. This does imply, however that we (created) have knowledge of the bounds of G-d which is, to say the least, like a person looking through a pair mirrors whose reflection is without end. For how can the created see the Creator when he himself is a reflection of the Creator without tainting it with his own bounds of perception?

When that mirror of creation has been distorted such as when a person thinks he can describe G-d's own's essence and function through scripture alone and without self-insight, very stupid thoughts come to mind (monkeys are stupid and homosapiens look similar to monkeys). Which is why I asked: Is there an explicitly authored text that defines the threeness of the oneness of G-d without conflict for the big-bang theory.

Contrary to belief that G-d is independent to the universe, the belief that G-d is also the universe, implies that G-d's own three-fold omnipersonal Oneness has no effect for the cause for the big-bang (i.e. matter) and that He was "not" eternal (20 billion years old) if it turns out to be true.


"There are only two things that are infinite: The universe and human stupidity though I'm not sure about the universe." A. Einstein


Do you suppose Einstein was fruitful? Many theories have arisen from his work. Does the trinity have a positive impact in humanity with deeds? Einstein was just a scientist. He had no proof that G-d does exist; I have proof that G-d exists <read my signature> and he does not have mediators, each and every human is his/her own mediator to G-d. Doesn't that make the trinity concept fruitless?

Thanks for your reply.

[Abelard]

You have a fundamental error, Mastralvorado.

The mystery of the Trinity is not a definition of God but is a statement that God is undefinable. St. Jerome says, in a well-known phrase: "The true profession of the mystery of the Trinity is to own that we do not comprehend it".

The purpose of the mystery of the Trinity is to prove that it is impossible to rationally understand the nature of God, not to reduce God to a mathematical formula. This does not keep Christians and Muslims alike from misunderstanding the Trinity, but if you look at the history of the concept this point is perfectly clear.

[staylor2233]

Hello , I do believe that before the universe was created with all of the matter in it , and the space between the matter , and whatever else that exists that doesn't fit into any category , that God "was". Our finite minds , ( mine , anyway ) can onlly try to grasp this , and it is in the truth of my belief of this that I'm able to see the blessings .

[Lizard]

Only a sloppy Trinitarian would say that Jesus is 100% God and 100% man.

The typical and accepted terminology is fully God and Fully man.

I hope that clarifies things for you.

[mastralvarado]

You have a fundamental error, Mastralvorado.

The mystery of the Trinity is not a definition of God but is a statement that God is undefinable. St. Jerome says, in a well-known phrase: "The true profession of the mystery of the Trinity is to own that we do not comprehend it".

The purpose of the mystery of the Trinity is to prove that it is impossible to rationally understand the nature of God, not to reduce God to a mathematical formula. This does not keep Christians and Muslims alike from misunderstanding the Trinity, but if you look at the history of the concept this point is perfectly clear.

Ok, I accept that we do not understand it. It is mystery. Does this mean that the historical fruits of its ownership to the wise have had or have a positive impact on humanity as a whole or as not a whole?

a) Would you say that a single soul has been gained to heaven because of this theory?
b) Would you say that greater calamities have been prevented because of this theory?

Regards,

Mastralvarado

Only a sloppy Trinitarian would say that Jesus is 100% God and 100% man.

The typical and accepted terminology is fully God and Fully man.

I hope that clarifies things for you.


Yes, thank you for clarifying this for me and for replying to this thread Faramir. Fully G-d and Fully man. Before the big-bang ocurred do you suposse that Fully man, Fully spirit and fully G-d could function in unison without the universe already in existence? I know that the universe could neither be or function without a cause; after the universe came into existence it succeded in functioning dependant on the counter function of G-d the creator. But before the universe was created, what functions could the Son and the Spirit actually do while still remaining Fully G-d. If in my understanding, G-d the Word just "was" and also G-d the Creator and G-d the Spirit, then how can G-d being He eternal, be in need of a Spirit and how can G-d being He the Creator (unmultipliable) need the Word without there being functions to matter in which to make manifest His essence?

More importantly,could you please answer this question:
Is fully G-d and Fully man not the same as fully G-d and Fully matter?

As ever, Mastralvarado


Hello , I do believe that before the universe was created with all of the matter in it , and the space between the matter , and whatever else that exists that doesn't fit into any category , that God "was". Our finite minds , ( mine , anyway ) can onlly try to grasp this , and it is in the truth of my belief of this that I'm able to see the blessings .

But you said that G-d was the universe (choice "c"). What is "was"? As long as that you are not trinitarian there would be no contradiction to your choice.
If you had chosen "b", as a either trinitarian or non-trinitarian, than that would have given G-d dependancy on something other than G-d. If you say G-d just "was", then I can accept that. Choice "b" would have been considered a complete contradiction with monotheism <before the big-bang> (added later).

In my opinion:
Dependancy of G-d to matter in function and matter Dependant to G-d in essence would make for a pantheistic view.
Could you please also answer this question:
Is fully G-d and Fully man not the same as fully G-d and Fully matter?

[Lizard]

Yes, thank you for clarifying this for me and for replying to this thread Faramir. Fully G-d and Fully man. Before the big-bang ocurred do you suposse that Fully man, Fully spirit and fully G-d could function in unison without the universe already in existence? I know that the universe could neither be or function without a cause; after the universe came into existence it succeded in functioning dependant on the counter function of G-d the creator. But before the universe was created, what functions could the Son and the Spirit actually do while still remaining Fully G-d. If in my understanding, G-d the Word just "was" and also G-d the Creator and G-d the Spirit, then how can G-d being He eternal, be in need of a Spirit and how can G-d being He the Creator (unmultipliable) need the Word without there being functions to matter in which to make manifest His essence?

To my knowledge there is no universal consensus on exactly when God the Son became fully man. It is my understanding that most Christians place this at the incarnation. That is God the Son become fully man when he inserted Himself into time and into a human body. So prior to the "big bang" (again not all Christians agree that the "big bang" is a proper understanding of creation, but using your terminology) Jesus was not fully man.

This is clearly stated in the Chalcedonian Creed:

begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood;

More importantly,could you please answer this question:
Is fully G-d and Fully man not the same as fully G-d and Fully matter?

No.

Edit to add: I said "prior" to the big bang as a convention of speech, since I hold that time began at the "big bang" there was nothing prior to the big bang in a temporal sense. Just trying to avoid confusion, but when dealing with atemporal reality, that is not always easy.

[Abelard]

a) Would you say that a single soul has been gained to heaven because of this theory?
b) Would you say that greater calamities have been prevented because of this theory?

I would say that it is a useful tool that has been used by man for both good and evil purposes. Muslims have a slight advantage in Islam being more specific and concrete, but Muhammad himself predicted even the Qur'an would eventually be perverted to serve Satan:

Bukhari 009.084.065
Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Amr bin Yasar

That they visited Abu Sa'id Al-Khudri and asked him about Al-Harauriyya, a special unorthodox religious sect, "Did you hear the Prophet saying anything about them?" Abu Sa'id said, "I do not know what Al-Harauriyya is, but I heard the Prophet saying, "There will appear in this nation---- he did not say: From this nation ---- a group of people so pious apparently that you will consider your prayers inferior to their prayers, but they will recite the Quran, the teachings of which will not go beyond their throats and will go out of their religion as an arrow darts through the game, whereupon the archer may look at his arrow, its Nasl at its Risaf and its Fuqa to see whether it is blood-stained or not (i.e. they will have not even a trace of Islam in them)."

Or, as Shakespeare worded it: "The Devil can quote Scripture to serve his purpose".

[mastralvarado]

To my knowledge there is no universal consensus on exactly when God the Son became fully man. It is my understanding that most Christians place this at the incarnation. That is God the Son become fully man when he inserted Himself into time and into a human body. So prior to the "big bang" (again not all Christians agree that the "big bang" is a proper understanding of creation, but using your terminology) Jesus was not fully man.

This is clearly stated in the Chalcedonian Creed:

begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood;

[U][B]

No.

Edit to add: I said "prior" to the big bang as a convention of speech, since I hold that time began at the "big bang" there was nothing prior to the big bang in a temporal sense. Just trying to avoid confusion, but when dealing with atemporal reality, that is not always easy.

So I take it your answer is "d": G-d did not always exist in the temporal sense (prior to the big-bang)? What then caused time to exist atemporaly?

[mastralvarado]

Hello and thank you for your useful post.

[spitndirt]

You have a fundamental error, Mastralvorado.

The mystery of the Trinity is not a definition of God but is a statement that God is undefinable. St. Jerome says, in a well-known phrase: "The true profession of the mystery of the Trinity is to own that we do not comprehend it".

The purpose of the mystery of the Trinity is to prove that it is impossible to rationally understand the nature of God, not to reduce God to a mathematical formula. This does not keep Christians and Muslims alike from misunderstanding the Trinity, but if you look at the history of the concept this point is perfectly clear.

I've heard this line of faulty reasoning many times. So the trinitarian says on the one hand '...God cannot be comprehended...' - and on the other hand he says '...God is three distinct persons, one God, existing in eternity past...'. After this he requires assent to his assertion with a threat of Divine condemnation for those who disagree.

Translation: '...We do not know God but just trust that we do anyway, else this God whom we do not know will burn you alive in a hell that we insist is real...'.

Is it not obvious that you are men of unclean lips??? Careful....lest the cup of the Lord's right hand be turned to you. Sheesh!!! How long must this go on???

[mastralvarado]

I've heard this line of faulty reasoning many times. So the trinitarian says on the one hand '...God cannot be comprehended...' - and on the other hand he says '...God is three distinct persons, one God, existing in eternity past...'. After this he requires assent to his assertion with a threat of Divine condemnation for those who disagree.

Translation: '...We do not know God but just trust that we do anyway, else this God whom we do not know will burn you alive in a hell that we insist is real...'.

Is it not obvious that you are men of unclean lips??? Careful....lest the cup of the Lord's right hand be turned to you. Sheesh!!! How long must this go on???

I'm not attacking the trinity doctrine. I'm attacking those who call themselves agnostics and place a hypostatic union between created and creator. Chalcedonian creed states that Jesus was begotten before eternity; if Faramir states that there is nothing before eternity, how does nothing become G-d Eternal atemporaly? What you have is a contradiction I see as "eternal is atemporal".

If anyone picked any of the three possibilities I gave while at the same time he remained a trinitarian, then that would logically be a contradiction for the "fully G-d and Fully man" statement. Why? because man is matter and matter is man, a cow is matter and therefore man is a cow (bring over the LNC if you want). Any "No" answer to all the three choices of my first post is only acceptable if it is from an atheist.

Question to Faramir:
What do you think brought forth the concept of time and the atemporal?

Whether I bring up the Qur'an or not, what I did was define G-d and Man clearly. Spirit was clearly defined in my position also.

If you think you contradict yourself by answer (using the three choices given), simply don't disclose what you are (trinitarian, non-trinitarian, gnostic, agnostic). But if you don't disclose your creed, then you simply can't contradict me (you possess no explicit counter arguments to oppose my position).

Is divine also Divine if it fails to meet any of the three criteria: Omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence? With hypostatic union it can. Without hypostatic union it doesn't. Function and essence of hypostatic union can only apply to matter given that the universe is limited and not to G-d for He is Infinite (Infinite and limited not necessarily opposites). So the son and spirit being matter at some point actually breaks this "hypostatic union" unless trinitarians were gnostics in disguise which I doubt. :wink:

Regards, Mastralvarado

[staylor2233]

Hello M (no disrespect )
I'll stick to answer C as it is the one that closest suits me . Also , I LOVE your question " Is fully G-d and Fully man not the same as fully G-d and Fully matter? " No . Everything is created from G-d , but that doesn't make a stone ,or a bird ,or a bush ,or a man, G-d , does it ? However , all that is , is from G-d , not from nothing . What is nothing ? We can only thhink in linear time , but , all that "is" was allways known . This is the mystery of faith , for me .

Stu

[spitndirt]

You are saying that G-d created the dense, super hot ball of mass that used to be the universe. I can live with that :smile:.

Haha....something like that. The beginning elements were these: Darkness, the deep, the Spirit of God, the waters.....filled and formed by the 'light' that God sent forth into the new realm.

But if G-d was independent of the universe, then that means that even before creation there was only one infinite G-d and one not so infinite universe.

Well....I would say that the universe is finite and therefore 'was not' until 'it was'. Finite things have a beginning and an end - speaking in terms of 'form' and not necessarily of 'endurance'. A thing can be made to endure from it's beginning on. A form must start at a point and stop at another point else it cannot be distinguished from other forms. God alone is infinite....all else is finite.


So this is what I mean: Where did this extra infinity of the trinity come from? If G-d is independent then where is the proof of the spiritual universe? That Jesus was with G-d even before the universe was created, I will not object for argument's sake, but where did the Holy Spirit (a.k.a the force) come from?

You ask good questions. First, there is no God that resembles a Trinity. The assertion is a false one - imagined and expressed through creative interpretation. Trinitarian beliefs are not based in knowledge but in misunderstanding. Infinite God cannot 'three distincts'. That would require triple displacement - impossible.

Jesus was a man born of woman in the fullness of time by way of the seed of God - which is His Word. The Word was in the beginning 'God' and came to dwell in the man Jesus through the seed that was the same. And so it is written of Jesus that '...the fullness of God dwelt in Him bodily...'. The man Jesus was not God......God was God in the man Jesus. There is a vast difference between these two things.

The Word was God in that it was the full expression of God brought forth so that what is hidden frpm the eyes of men (pre-creation God) could be revealed to them in a way they could comprehend. Where only God is there is no need for a revelation since what God is is clear to God. But for the sake of those whom God would create there needed to be the revelation. Hence, the Word was brought forth for this purpose. The intangible revealed in tangible form.

The Word was 'with God' in that this tangible revelation was not for God but for another - ultimately for Jesus, and through Him to and for those who belong to Him. Take away Jesus, His followers, and the Word and God remains fully God still. In Jesus God is fused to man via the Word. This is why it is written '...The Word became flesh...'. God is immortal...and man's immortality is dependant upon this fusing. The Word of God is in fact the mediator - Jesus, the mediator made flesh.

If it was biblically well-founded that the Spirit comes from G-d to intercede does this mean that he is the mediator and not the Son? If both mediator and interceder are at work then, wouldn't there be a conflict between them?

The Holy Spirit would take me much time to explain in detail. In short, the Word of God 'in us' is the aspect that is that renders a man complete. This is the Holy Spirit...the Spirit of Christ and of God. There is allegory in the opening chapters of Genesis that depict this clearly. It was the addition of 'light' to the preformed elements of the earth that made it possible for it to be formed, filled, brought into perfect order and unity and finally called 'good' by God. Just as the earth and the man were brought to a point of Sabbath, so too is one who is embued with light from above by vurtue of his faith in God's one and only Son. The Word 'in us' is this light. As through the first Adam sin entered into the world, so through the second Adam (Jesus) light has entered in - only according to a different arrangement. It is transfered from outside to inside the heart of a man via the Word of God. By the same Word Light appeared in darkness in the beginning it is shed abroad in our hearts today. Peter spoke of this saying '...pay attention to the prophecies as to a light that shines in a dark place until Day Star rises in your hearts...'.

Think of it like this:

"A child has a pool of sand and he begins to create something." The child is an anthropomorphism of G-d and the sand is metaphor for the universe or the microcosm.

If that child takes a piece of sand into him to veil him from the created then His identity as to the created has become a god because in no way can the mediator be the creator.

Look at it like this:

Can a bolt of lightning travel throught the atmosphere from point "a" to point "b" without there being an opposite attraction? The interceder would intercede as an for example a lightining rod.

First analogy: But the mediator can be the creator - by proxy. If God is intangible and the material of creation is not God must create through a medium that is able to relate to both the intangible and the material. If this mediator is the full expression of intangible God and is then embued with a will of his own he can indeed be called creator of all that has been created - but not in a way that He is this on his own. He who brought forth this 'mediator with will' is still the source of all things. The thing is, this mediator must also willingly submit to the the will of the One who brought him forth. Now, while the mediator is in willing subjection to God it is not the mediator who is being seen but the God to whom his will subject. For instance, If I am moving at your impulse via the word of your command, is it me being seen....or really you? It would really be you. I would be sort of 'hidden' in you as long as I was doing your will and not my own. Get it?

Second analogy: That is a good one...but let me arrange it a bit differently. There must exist two points so that a bolt of lightning can flash as if from 'here' to 'there'. Point A is like God, point B is like man.....the bolt of lightning is like the mediator between the two. Point A - or God, would be the positive terminal...point B, the negative. Both are required in order to render 'valid' the charge that moves from one point to the other and/or vice-versa. I know this is a bit different than what you were saying but the picture works for me.

In my opinion:
So if the Creator has veiled Himself in sand (as with Jesus the mediator), then the positive definition of the Creator would be opposing to what explicit scripture says.

Link (http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/onegod.php)

Not necessarily. If there are two wills involved, one in willing subjection to the other, then both the man and the Word can be present in the one form. Though the man is visible you are seeing the Word in action - via the man. Jesus was hidden in God as God was doing His will in and through him as he was willingly in subjection.

As for my explicit example from the Qur'an I include it so that you may ponder over how explicit the words are. I could take from biblical texts some mentions of the oneness of G-d and these are all positive statements made in an explicit sense. Does, for example, the Bible include any statement that mentions in a single explicit paragraph, the opposite of what is the non-trinitarian (Islamic)?

No.....there are no explicit texts supporting the idea of '...three distinct persons, one God, existing in eternity past...'. This idea is a deduction by uninspired men.

Example:
Where does G-d explicitly say in any text that is trinitarian-approved:

No such text exists. This is why this task is impossible in monotheistic religion. This is why the trinity can't be disproven literary because no such explicit text that approves it exists. The Qur'an disproves it but the trinitarians reject the Qur'an.

Therefore, if you believe that G-d is independent and also believe that there has to be a mediator between the communicator and the receptor then, you may be right; but if you believe that that Communicator has taken up a limited mediator (spirit/Jesus/atmosphere) as an indispensable "x" of Him, then the Oneness of G-d becomes analog (to the receptor's limited mind) and no longer is communication is possible.

Yes...no such texts exist. Trinitarians also reject clear biblical scripture....so I wouldn't feel too bad. About Jesus....he is not the communicator. God is. Jesus is the means of communication between God and 'us'. We and God meet in Jesus, the Christ....the Word of God become flesh.

In my view:
Not an atom's weight of matter can be considered G-d; this is not an agnostic view of things, because matter is G-d's playground and can be converted into energy and vice-versa energy into matter. It is also, in no way related to the un-fathomable except as a mirror through which G-d's reflection can be observed through implicit means. A filter could also be used, who knows (Allah knows best)?

Jesus is this mirror - or filter. As I have said, Jesus was silent...God was speaking to us by him. Jesus was not doing his own work.....but what he saw his Father (God) doing. In this God was revealing Himself in His Son.....or, in a way that we can comprehend Him.

If a Jew told me that Moses saw G-d I would say that he could have seen the reflection or filter of G-d but not G-d directly for who can stand and look at him directly and live?

No one can look upon God and live....you are right. Which is why when I saw the Father in the Son I died to myself so that I might live to Him. In Christ is found resurrection and newness of life. So it is not so bad to die. In fact it is necessary in order to experience new birth (a resurrection of sorts which will culminate in a literal resurrection someday).

I can understand that what you mean when you say that He is bounded (by the affinity to His creation); after all, He is the First and the Last. This does imply, however that we (created) have knowledge of the bounds of G-d which is, to say the least, like a person looking through a pair mirrors whose reflection is without end. For how can the created see the Creator when he himself is a reflection of the Creator without tainting it with his own bounds of perception?

Yes...our own perception with it's natural limitations cannot find God out. We cannot see or know Him without a revelation that is from Him. Hense, God showed Himself to us in and through His son. Jesus said '...If you have seen me you have seen the Father...'. Jesus did not do his own will but the will of the One who sent him.

When that mirror of creation has been distorted such as when a person thinks he can describe G-d's own's essence and function through scripture alone and without self-insight, very stupid thoughts come to mind (monkeys are stupid and homosapiens look similar to monkeys). Which is why I asked: Is there an explicitly authored text that defines the threeness of the oneness of G-d without conflict for the big-bang theory.

No...there is not. You are right again.....but what you are calling 'self-insight' I am calling 'revelation from God'. That way God is shown to be the source and I the recipient of an unearned and therefore undeserved gift. If I were able to know my God through my own limited intellect no revelation would be necessary and in aprehending such a knowledge of God without revelation I could then credit myself with divine wisdom.....and force God to acknowledge me base upon my own merits. Haha.....that's as impossible as the existance of a triune God.

Contrary to belief that G-d is independent to the universe, the belief that G-d is also the universe, implies that G-d's own three-fold omnipersonal Oneness has no effect for the cause for the big-bang (i.e. matter) and that He was "not" eternal (20 billion years old) if it turns out to be true.

Do you suppose Einstein was fruitful? Many theories have arisen from his work. Does the trinity have a positive impact in humanity with deeds? Einstein was just a scientist. He had no proof that G-d does exist; I have proof that G-d exists and he does not have mediators, each and every human is his/her own mediator to G-d. Doesn't that make the trinity concept fruitless?

Friutless is an understatement. More like destructive. Trinitarians have sought to divide God....but look, God has divided them instead. And yet none of them seem to percieve it. But then if their peception is off in one place it is likely to be off in all places. If they are right about anything it must be by accident. My thoughts....

Thanks for your reply.

Thank you for yours :smile:

[apostoli]

Hello mastralvarado,

a]G-d is independant of the universe (i.e. the Universe is not G-d's function nor G-d's essence)I found your three options worded to be prejudicially weighted. None of them is acceptable to me. However, if these are all you are allowing I'd have to pick (a). Though with the qualification that because God is omnipersonal, it cannot be said that He "is independent of the universe" but rather He "is not dependent on the universe". So ignoring your political rhetoric, this is what I think what your personal self meant to communicate.
the Universe is not G-d's functionI find this vague. I would say the function of God to the rational creature is to be active within creation. That is: God is not dispassionate towards His creation (He doesn't create and forget).
I believe that G-d is independent of the universe. That way, I cannot possibly attribute anything limited to G-d only describe unlimited attributes such as Mercy, Sovereignty, Clemency, Power, Wealth, Wisdom, Strength, Honour, Glory, Worship, and many more.Except for posSibly wisdom and strength, all of the things you nominated imply dependency, as none have a context apart from the Universe. So imu, you have inadvertantly put God in the perspective of certain bounds.
Trinitarians, in my understanding, attribute 100% manhood and 100% Divinity to Jesus (explicitly). This conclusion can only imply that the universe is 100% matter and 100% Divine.Man is not 100% material, only his body might be presumed as such. Until God breathed into his creation, it was just a lump of clay. Once the breathe was given man, he became a living soul.

Your argument fails on specifics. Of course you are free to believe that man is 100% material, made of body plus a material soul. Though this would imply a duality in materialism - one tangible, one not. And if the soul is material, then so is heaven and hades. And if God resides in heaven, then He is also material etc. It seems a very contradictory set of thoughts.
Thus, G-d's intervention in the Big-Bang Theory to ignite the chain-of-events that lead up to the resulting universe we know and live in today can only be, from a trinitarian perspective, hypocritical and contradicting.Would you explain that(?) The big bang is just a theory and yet to be proved. Imu, the Quran suggests God says and it is. So what was the necessity for the singularity of mass that quantum mechanics assumes preceded the bang?
Do you have any...scripture that can inequivocally describe/equate G-d as a Being that contains/possesses a three-in-one parallel existence explicitly as I have*?Imu, God is immaterial (not comprised of anything we can perceive) so he is not a being as that term usually implies. Romans 8:7-11 teaches the tri-unity of Father, Son and Spirit in union with us. Note particularly vs7 that says "the carnal mind is enmity against God". Your arguments seem to be carnal, seeking material explanations and justifications.
My position is: Jesus is 100% man and 100% microcosm. On the other hand, G-d is 100% G-d and not cosmosMy position is that Jesus is the intemporal, pre-existent, incarnated, Son of God, begotten but not as created things beget. His Father, is our Father by adoption, we adopted by virtue of faith in the Son. "god" is a pagan delusion that man invented to explain the material world. Our Father contrasts and disassociates himself from such throughout the Hebrew and Christian scriptures.
Is the trinity fruitful?In my expeience most definitely. In my country our government and legal systems and social conscience are based on its structure. Then again I live in a country where freedom and free conscience is guaranteed through a constitutional monarchy, with three tiers to government. Other sucessful societies also apply this structure.

Another aspect of fruitfullness: countries and/or groups of people that use the tr-unity model have historically been more cohesive societies and therefore generally more inclusive, successful and charitable. Compare that Western experience with more fatalistic societies/groups that marginalise their dictorial god and conceive Him in philosophic and/or tribal metaphors making Him detached from personal experience and thus, detachment of the person from their "god" making personal works their only communicative experience of Him.

Peace.

[Lizard]

So I take it your answer is "d": G-d did not always exist in the temporal sense (prior to the big-bang)? What then caused time to exist atemporaly? Gen. 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Edit to add: It is also my understanding of common big bang cosmology that time didn't start until the "big bang" event.

[mastralvarado]

Hello Apostoli thank you for your useful post,

Hello mastralvarado,

Originally posted by mastralvarado
a]G-d is independant of the universe (i.e. the Universe is not G-d's function nor G-d's essence)

I found your three options worded to be prejudicially weighted. None of them is acceptable to me. However, if these are all you are allowing I'd have to pick (a). Though with the qualification that because God is omnipersonal, it cannot be said that He "is independent of the universe" but rather He "is not dependent on the universe". So ignoring your political rhetoric, this is what I think what your personal self meant to communicate.

Wow, very intuitive. :sigh: I'm trying not to be political. You can correct me if you want as long as the principle is not modified. Omnipersonal, I assumed this means that G-d being "Omni" can be anywhere and in anything; to me, "personal" meaning reflected personaly on to whom/what G-d Wills. Omnipresent would imply present even in non-matter/energy (space)? Get it?



Originally posted by mastralvarado
the Universe is not G-d's function

I find this vague. I would say the function of God to the rational creature is to be active within creation. That is: God is not dispassionate towards His creation (He doesn't create and forget).

Here you are claiming that G-d is passionate. An attribute G-d cannot posses in my view because it implies G-d feels as we feel. I prefer to look at it as G-d is Compassionate to Himself through His creatures (reflected upon Him)


Originally posted by mastralvarado
I believe that G-d is independent of the universe. That way, I cannot possibly attribute anything limited to G-d only describe unlimited attributes such as Mercy, Sovereignty, Clemency, Power, Wealth, Wisdom, Strength, Honour, Glory, Worship, and many more.

Except for posSibly wisdom and strength, all of the things you nominated imply dependency, as none have a context apart from the Universe. So imu, you have inadvertantly put God in the perspective of certain bounds.


I will rephrase again "I" (the created) attribute unlimited attributes in my limited view of G-d knowing fully well aware that I am limited and He Unlimited. Whether what I inadvertantly ascribe to Him is limited or not limited still doesn't change my understanding that He is Perfect and I am not. So please do correct me If I am imperfect which is far from being wrong.


Originally posted by mastralvarado
Trinitarians, in my understanding, attribute 100% manhood and 100% Divinity to Jesus (explicitly). This conclusion can only imply that the universe is 100% matter and 100% Divine.

Man is not 100% material, only his body might be presumed as such. Until God breathed into his creation, it was just a lump of clay. Once the breathe was given man, he became a living soul.

Your argument fails on specifics. Of course you are free to believe that man is 100% material, made of body plus a material soul. Though this would imply a duality in materialism - one tangible, one not. And if the soul is material, then so is heaven and hades. And if God resides in heaven, then He is also material etc. It seems a very contradictory set of thoughts.


G-d Sits in His Throne. That for all we know is in the heavens, heavens being the rest of the universe and space. Space is not matter nor energy but just emptyness. G-d is not matter nor energy I reiterate. None know what G-d's Own Essence nor Function is. All I know is G-d exists.

There is no duality. Atoms are intangible, do you have any evidence that they are not just a bunch of atoms or magnetic force-field that is extremely separated. Hence, maybe out of all of the atoms that comprise the soul, only one of those is the soul.

G-d is omnipersonal. To me, that means He is only present through reflection where there are corporeal beings. G-d is not matter nor energy: this is all I know. Who ever said G-d resides in heaven probably imagined his/her own reflection of G-d in reaching out of his/her own mediation with G-d. If this experience was heard, meaning that a blind person which can't tell the difference between heaven nor hades using his/her own imagination, then intercession should be made to send a prayer to G-d.

As Jesus said: Where there are two or three persons joined in faith, G-d is there.
What this would imply, for me, is the following:
• G-d is monopersonal when there is only one person in mediation to G-d.
• G-d is multipersonal when there are two persons in intercession to G-d.
• G-d is omnipersonal when there are three persons in prayer to G-d.

The same can be said for a person that cannot reflect belief in G-d.
• G-d is omnipresent in that person
• G-d is multipresent in those persons
• G-d is monopresent in all of those persons

_________

What is "mustard seed"?


Originally posted by mastralvarado
Thus, G-d's intervention in the Big-Bang Theory to ignite the chain-of-events that lead up to the resulting universe we know and live in today can only be, from a trinitarian perspective, hypocritical and contradicting.

Would you explain that(?) The big bang is just a theory and yet to be proved. Imu, the Quran suggests God says and it is. So what was the necessity for the singularity of mass that quantum mechanics assumes preceded the bang?

Yes, the Big-bang is just a theory. Quantum physics assumes that a cause for the Big-bang is needed, in an expanding Universe. The only explanation possible, to the scientific comunity for the singularity of mass to be self-influenced by gravity is that the Universe will either:

a) contract again in an unknown number of billions of years by gravitational pull
b) no explanation

Here is how trinitarians contradict themselves:
Trinitarians that believe a: G-d is independent of the Universe or, naively, that G-d is the Universe cannot possibly be Catholics nor Christians because in a G-d is dependant on Hypostasis Union in order to convert matter into G-d and G-d is dependant on matter and to convert G-d to matter; and oppositely matter is dependant on G-d to be converted into G-d. Which means that any matter can be converted into G-d and vice-versa which is impossible (Allah knows best).

Trinitarians only accept that Jesus can be G-d and G-d can be Jesus and that a the Holy Spirit can be G-d and G-d can be the holy spirit. This would be true historically, but impossible without permanent interaction between the god and the matter in question ALL throughout the post conversion process (Partially G-d and Partially Man).

Which means that Fully man and fully G-d is impossible from an agnostic view and neither fully man and partially G-d from the gnostic perspective using the scientific fruits as example. What I would call contradicting is the fact that hypostasis union implies that Fully man and fully G-d is the trinity.
_________________

The process of converting souls into the faith would leave a byproduct such as the one from the process of converting matter into energy. What I ask what is so fruitful (byproduct) about the trinity process of conversion of faith? If it is deeds whether G-d's or your own , then it is hypocritical. All evidence points that an intangible faith is the byproduct of conversion of G-d into matter. But where is it?

Could Jesus convert his own apostles into his faith? Jesus himself questioned their faith.



Originally posted by mastralvarado
Do you have any...scripture that can inequivocally describe/equate G-d as a Being that contains/possesses a three-in-one parallel existence explicitly as I have*?
]
Imu, God is immaterial (not comprised of anything we can perceive) so he is not a being as that term usually implies. Romans 8:7-11 teaches the tri-unity of Father, Son and Spirit in union with us. Note particularly vs7 that says "the carnal mind is enmity against God". Your arguments seem to be carnal, seeking material explanations and justifications.


No.
What I'm asking is: where is the intangible byproduct of the process of conversion to the trinitarian faith? I can't find any evidence of it from trinitarians nor any other faith. I only see deeds not faith.

The point: To justify the big-bang as something G-d caused functionally or essentially (coming from a well-versed trinitarian) to remain a "faithful" one is, to say the least, hypocritical and shameful.
Recommendation: Don't say it if you don't know.


Originally posted by mastralvarado
My position is: Jesus is 100% man and 100% microcosm. On the other hand, G-d is 100% G-d and not cosmos

My position is that Jesus is the intemporal, pre-existent, incarnated, Son of God, begotten but not as created things beget. His Father, is our Father by adoption, we adopted by virtue of faith in the Son. "god" is a pagan delusion that man invented to explain the material world. Our Father contrasts and disassociates himself from such throughout the Hebrew and Christian scriptures.


I respect your view.


Originally posted by mastralvarado
Is the trinity fruitful?
In my expeience most definitely. In my country our government and legal systems and social conscience are based on its structure. Then again I live in a country where freedom and free conscience is guaranteed through a constitutional monarchy, with three tiers to government. Other sucessful societies also apply this structure.

Another aspect of fruitfullness: countries and/or groups of people that use the tr-unity model have historically been more cohesive societies and therefore generally more inclusive, successful and charitable. Compare that Western experience with more fatalistic societies/groups that marginalise their dictorial god and conceive Him in philosophic and/or tribal metaphors making Him detached from personal experience and thus, detachment of the person from their "god" making personal works their only communicative experience of Him.

Peace.

Pure deeds. Vaguely "mustard seed". I agree by comparison:more fruitful in deeds.
Peace to you too.

[mastralvarado]

I wanted to simplify the whole thread so as to make it easily comprehensible.
1: Contradiction
1) Trinitarians hold that G-d is Love (G-d)
2) Scientists proved that the universe is not G-d
3) Some agnostics argued that G-d caused the big bang
4) These agnostics inadvertenly argued that G-d is the gnostic Demiurge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demiurge).

Therefore these agnostics contradicted themselves.

2: Hypocrisy
1) Einstein has proven that matter can be converted into faith
2) Trinitarians have yet to prove that deeds can be converted into faith using "triangular" agape love
3) Some trinitarians agreed that G-d caused the Universe to exist and at the same time G-d is agape love
4) Inadvertedly they agreed they that G-d is the Demiurge

Therefore, G-d is Agape Love and at the same time the Creator of the Physical Universe!

Why I am not hypocritical:

because I picked "a) G-d is independent of the Universe"
The terms gnostic/docetism and agnostic don't apply to Islam.

Edit to Add: If you picked "c" you are naive.

[Lizard]

Greetings M (I hope you don't mind if I call you M mastralvarado is a long name to type out each time).

To let you know where I stand (and where I am confused) I will address each premise:
I wanted to simplify the whole thread so as to make it easily comprehensible.
1: Contradiction
1) Trinitarians hold that G-d is Love (G-d)
2) Scientists proved that the universe is not G-d
3) Some agnostics argued that G-d caused the big bang
4) These agnostics inadvertently argued that G-d is the Gnostic Demiurge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demiurge).

Therefore these agnostics contradicted themselves.

Premise 1. It is true that Christian scripture says "God is love", but IMO this is one of the most misused and misconstrued scriptures in the Bible. And Christians and non-Christians alike are both guilty of misusing this verse.

The contextfor this verse (1 John 4:7-12) is:

Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. 8 Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love. 9 In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. 10 In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. 11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. 12 No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us.

This passage is a definition of love. John is extorting his audience to “love” in the manner that God loves. John is not defining God, but defining love. So many people on all sides of the issue take this one little phrase out of context and make it into a definition of God.

Yes, love is one of the attributes of God, but it is not the only attribute and it is not the sole definition of Who God is.

Premise 2. I am not sure how science has proved this. However, since Trinitarianism is NOT pantheism, I do not disagree that the universe is not God.

Premise 3. I agree with this premise (depending on the definition you are using for agnostic).

Primise 4. I would disagree, I think that Gnostic and agnostic are antithetical. If they ascribe to the Gnostic concept of the demiurge, then they are no longer agnostic.

Conclusion. The conclusion is based primarily on Premises 3-4. I have no idea how Premise one has any relevance at all on the conclusion. Nor do I have any idea what direct bearing premise two has the argument. I can see that premise 2 can be a little bit of background information, but I do not see that it is necessary as a premise.

Now to your next syllogism (I know it is not a true syllogism, but it is set up in syllogism form):

2: Hypocrisy
1) Einstein has proven that matter can be converted into faith
2) Trinitarians have yet to prove that deeds can be converted into faith using "triangular" agape love
3) Some trinitarians agreed that G-d caused the Universe to exist and at the same time G-d is agape love
4) Inadvertedly they agreed they that G-d is the Demiurge

Therefore, G-d is Agape Love and at the same time the Creator of the Physical Universe!



Premise 1: I am no expert on Einstein, but I don’t see how he could prove anything about faith. I will hold of totally dismissing this premise though, if you can provide more clarification on what you mean by that premise.

Premise 2: I have no idea what you are talking about here. What do you mean by “deeds” being “converted into faith”? and “’triangular’ agape”. Please define those terms.

Premise 3: I would say that all Trinitarians (at least all that are within the pale of orthodoxy) say that God created the universe. I would agree that some Trinitarians think that “agape love” is a definition of God. But IMO that is just bad exegesis (or more accurately eisigesis).

Premise 4: Again, it depends on how you define the term demiurge. Since you capitalized the word, I assume you are referring to the Gnostic Demiurge. If that is so, I disagree. Believing that the creator is also the “Demiurge” is no more a prerequisite of Christianity than it is for Islam. In fact, I would say (despite what some Wikipedia articles may say) Gnosticism and the Gnostic Demiurge are not Christian at all an any one who believes in this is not a Christian.

Conclusion: While I disagree with the statement “God is Agape Love” at least as you seem to be using it as a definitive definition of God, I do not see any logical contradiction with “Agape Love being also being the Creator of the Universe”.

And I do not see why you get the opinion that the Christian view of cosmology/ontology is any different than the Muslim view:
Why I am not hypocritical:

because I picked "a) G-d is independent of the Universe"
The terms gnostic/docetism and agnostic don't apply to Islam.

Edit to Add: If you picked "c" you are naive.

a) is the only choice that fits within orthodox Christianity. If a person responds with any other answer they are either ignorant or a heretic. They are certainly not an orthodox Christian.

And again, contrary to some Wikipedia articles and other sources, the terms Gnostic/docetism do NOT apply to Christianity any more than they apply to Islam (unless you also put the word heretical in front of the word Christianity and even then I would not use the term "Christian" to describe either position).


I hope this clarifies my position, and hopefully provide you with information to clarify your position to me.

[apostoli]

Hello mastralvarado,

1: Contradiction 1) Trinitarians hold that G-d is Love (G-d)As does the Quran!

"And We have not sent you (O Muhammad) except as an act of love (rahmah) to all the worlds." (21:107)
"On those who have faith and do good will the Most Gracious One (Rahman) bestow love (wudda)." (19:96)
Say, (O My Prophet to the people), "if you love God, follow me, (and) God will love you (hub) and forgive you your sins; for God is oft-forgiving, most merciful." (3:31)

Wudda gives rise to God's name Al-Wadud (Loving One) (11:90; 85:14).
http://www.beautifulislam.net/tellmemore/god_and_love.htm


Here is how trinitarians contradict themselves:
Trinitarians that believe a: G-d is independent of the Universe or, naively, that G-d is the Universe cannot possibly be Catholics nor ChristiansI've never encountered any Catholic or Protestant saying such. So there is no cntradiction amongst them.

because in a G-d is dependant on Hypostasis Union in order to convert matter into G-d and G-d is dependant on matter and to convert G-d to matter; and oppositely matter is dependant on G-d to be converted into G-d. Which means that any matter can be converted into G-d and vice-versa which is impossible (Allah knows best).I don't know who you are trying to refute, it definitely ain't trinitarians. Nothing in your statement is contemplated or taught within the Christian churches.

1. We agree that God is not composed of material and/or thought of a mass of energy.
2. The Hypostatic Union is not about mass joining mass but hypostasis of God united with the hypostasis of man. The Greek word, hypostasis refers to that which underlies a thing (ie: unchangeable attributions).
3. In the Christian teaching no conversion of Jesus occurs. In the teaching of the HU the two natures are not confounded (not to be thought of as compound nature) but rather they are united in harmony - will and purpose.
Trinitarians only accept that Jesus can be G-d and G-d can be Jesus and that a the Holy Spirit can be G-d and G-d can be the holy spirit.Pentecostal oneness believers hold that their God manifested himself to man in three modes. These guys are not trinitarians. Note: trinity is a compound word ie: tri-unity = three in unity.

What I would call contradicting is the fact that hypostasis union implies that Fully man and fully G-d is the trinity.Who teaches that? Definitely not trinitarians.

What I'm asking is: where is the intangible byproduct of the process of conversion to the trinitarian faith? I can't find any evidence of it from trinitarians nor any other faith. I only see deeds not faith.Thats because you are looking with your eyes and not your heart.

Peace.

[mastralvarado]

Hello mastralvarado,

As does the Quran!

"And We have not sent you (O Muhammad) except as an act of love (rahmah) to all the worlds." (21:107)
"On those who have faith and do good will the Most Gracious One (Rahman) bestow love (wudda)." (19:96)
Say, (O My Prophet to the people), "if you love God, follow me, (and) God will love you (hub) and forgive you your sins; for God is oft-forgiving, most merciful." (3:31)

Wudda gives rise to God's name Al-Wadud (Loving One) (11:90; 85:14).
http://www.beautifulislam.net/tellmemore/god_and_love.htm


I've never encountered any Catholic or Protestant saying such. So there is no cntradiction amongst them.

I don't know who you are trying to refute, it definitely ain't trinitarians. Nothing in your statement is contemplated or taught within the Christian churches.

1. We agree that God is not composed of material and/or thought of a mass of energy.
2. The Hypostatic Union is not about mass joining mass but hypostasis of God united with the hypostasis of man. The Greek word, hypostasis refers to that which underlies a thing (ie: unchangeable attributions).
3. In the Christian teaching no conversion of Jesus occurs. In the teaching of the HU the two natures are not confounded (not to be thought of as compound nature) but rather they are united in harmony - will and purpose.
Pentecostal oneness believers hold that their God manifested himself to man in three modes. These guys are not trinitarians. Note: trinity is a compound word ie: tri-unity = three in unity.

Who teaches that? Definitely not trinitarians.

Thats because you are looking with your eyes and not your heart.

Peace.

Strawman, that is not my position.

[mastralvarado]

Greetings M (I hope you don't mind if I call you M

mastralvarado is a long name to type out each time).

Now to your next syllogism (I know it is not a true syllogism, but it is set up

in syllogism form):

Premise 1: I am no expert on Einstein, but I don’t see how he could

prove anything about faith. I will hold of totally dismissing this premise

though, if you can provide more clarification on what you mean by that premise.


1)Einstein proved matter can be converted to faith.*

1:EINSTEIN PROVES MATTER CONVERTED TO FAITH

1) EINSTEIN THEORIZED MATTER IS ENERGY (in form)
2) JESUS THEORIZED FAITH IS A SEED (in form)
3) SCIENCE PROVES AN EXPLOSION IN HEAVEN IS TREELIKE (in shape)
4) PHILOSOPHY PROVES FAITH IS TREELIKE (in shape)

USING HU BOTH EXPLOSION AND FAITH SHARE THE SAME SHAPE (TREE) AND NOT THE SAME SUBJECT AND TO THE SAME RESPECT TO THAT ATTRIBUTE FORM. THIS HAS RELEVANCE WITH THE TRINITY BECAUSE TRINITARIANISM IS A PHILOSOPHY/CONCEPT AND HAS NO RELEVANCE WITHOUT HU.


Premise 2: I have no idea what you are talking about here. What do you

mean by “deeds” being “converted into faith”? and “’triangular’ agape”.

Please define those terms.

You should lookup all of these terms up and see if they have and have not any relevance to the same subjects (Fruits and Deeds) so as to satisfy HU's Jesus is fully G-d and Fully man statement on your part (Faramir).
In definition: deeds as in "do/not do"
In definition: triangular Of, relating to, or shaped like a triangle.
In definition: agape love as in meaning Jesus selfless love.
Using hypostasis union reducing into simplest attributions, i.e. meaning premise 1*

Do you see my position? Do you have any thoughts/comments?

[Lizard]

1)Einstein proved matter can be converted to faith.*

1:EINSTEIN PROVES MATTER CONVERTED TO FAITH

1) EINSTEIN THEORIZED MATTER IS ENERGY (in form)
2) JESUS THEORIZED FAITH IS A SEED (in form)
3) SCIENCE PROVES AN EXPLOSION IN HEAVEN IS TREELIKE (in shape)
4) PHILOSOPHY PROVES FAITH IS TREELIKE (in shape)

That is quite a stretch IMO.

Premise 1. I know next to nothing of theoretical physics, but I agree that premise 1 is accurate to the best of my understanding.

Premise 2. Jesus compared faith to a mustard seed (He also compared the Kingdom of God to a mustard seed). That is not the same thing as "theorizing" that "faith is a seed.

Premise 3 and 4. I have no idea what you are talking about. Even if an explosion in space is shaped like a tree, that is nothing but coincidental at best. And what in the world is meant by "philosophy proves faith is treelike (in shape). I don't even know what that means.

But even assuming the premises are true (and except for #1 I don't), there is no logical connection between them to lead to the conclusion that Faith can be Converted to matter. I just don't see it.

USING HU BOTH EXPLOSION AND FAITH SHARE THE SAME SHAPE (TREE) AND NOT THE SAME SUBJECT AND TO THE SAME RESPECT TO THAT ATTRIBUTE FORM. THIS HAS RELEVANCE WITH THE TRINITY BECAUSE TRINITARIANISM IS A PHILOSOPHY/CONCEPT AND HAS NO RELEVANCE WITHOUT HU.

Sorry M. I'm just not following you at all. I see know way to ascribe a difinite "shape" to something as intangible as faith. Yes, metaphores can be drawn, but that is not the same thing as assiging a fixed shape (even a shape as nebulous as "tree shaped" ).

I belive it is philosophcially possible to have a Trinity without the HU. But the ortodox understanding of the Trinity includes the HU. Additionally very earlier trinitarian thelogians applied a sense of hypostasis to the Trinity even before it was articulated in writing to the HU. So in sense you are right, if you are saying that hypostasis (but not the HU) is a central theme in most well articulated theories of the Trinity.

You should lookup all of these terms up and see if they have and have not any relevance to the same subjects (Fruits and Deeds) so as to satisfy HU's Jesus is fully G-d and Fully man statement on your part (Faramir).
In definition: deeds as in "do/not do"
In definition: triangular Of, relating to, or shaped like a triangle.
In definition: agape love as in meaning Jesus selfless love.
Using hypostasis union reducing into simplest attributions, i.e. meaning premise 1*

Do you see my position? Do you have any thoughts/comments?

Sorry I don't see you position at all. The only "fruits and deeds" connection I can come up with are all scriptural and not logical. Colosions speaks of "Fruit of the spirit" which is manifested in deeds. And James speaks of faith without works being dead faith. But this is theological, not logical.

I don't mind talking thelogical debate, in fact I think it is my forte, but you seem to be taking a logical approach, and I don't want to get too far off your OP nor branch out to too many desparte trains of thought.

[mastralvarado]

Come to Me, and I Will Give You Rest

At that time Jesus declared, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children;...

[mastralvarado]

Hello mastralvarado,

As does the Quran!
:scissors:

Where does the Qur'an explicitly say G-d is love?


I've never encountered any Catholic or Protestant saying such. So there is no cntradiction amongst them.

I don't know who you are trying to refute, it definitely ain't trinitarians. Nothing in your statement is contemplated or taught within the Christian churches.

1. We agree that God is not composed of material and/or thought of a mass of energy.
2. The Hypostatic Union is not about mass joining mass but hypostasis of God united with the hypostasis of man. The Greek word, hypostasis refers to that which underlies a thing (ie: unchangeable attributions).
3. In the Christian teaching no conversion of Jesus occurs. In the teaching of the HU the two natures are not confounded (not to be thought of as compound nature) but rather they are united in harmony - will and purpose.
Pentecostal oneness believers hold that their God manifested himself to man in three modes. These guys are not trinitarians. Note: trinity is a compound word ie: tri-unity = three in unity.

Who teaches that? Definitely not trinitarians.

Thats because you are looking with your eyes and not your heart.

Peace.

Dear Apostoli,

I found out about modalist Oneness Pentecostalism1 and they hold that Jesus was G-d in one will and was fully G-d and Fully man. If I'm not mistaken, these guys would have to pick "b" no matter what they come up with. Chalcedonians — Roman Catholics, Orthodox Christians, and Protestants2 on the other hand hold the unmodal view that Jesus has two wills and has two natures and is really true God and true Man.

Faramir must be from the Oriental Orthodox Church because he showed a Chalcedonian Creed as evidence while and also described a Oneness Pentecostal Protestant view of the HUbecause of his fully G-d and Fully man "sloppy" description for non-eastern Orthodox Trinitarian Oneness of Jesus.


Only a sloppy Trinitarian would say that Jesus is 100% God and 100% man.

The typical and accepted terminology is fully God and Fully man.

I hope that clarifies things for you.


So how different is saying G-d has two natures and is truly man and truly G-d with saying G-d has one will and is Fully Man and fully G-d? Oneness Pentecostals don't seem that much different than Trinitarians in respect to the hybridness of G-d. Does theosis3 apply to modalists as well as non-modalists such as oneness pentecostals?
________________________________
Meaning:

1) In Oneness Pentecostalism, Jesus is Fully man and fully G-d (in respect to modes/subjects)
2) In Trinitarian hypostasis union, Jesus is Fully both truly man and truly G-d (in respect to wills/natures or attributes)
3) Jesus is both hybridly man and hybridly G-d applying it to both modal and unmodal views of Christianity.
4) Therefore, Oneness Pentecostals are heretics.

_______________________________________


Thank you for this useful post.


REFERENCES

1 (http://www.answers.com/topic/oneness-pentecostal), 2 (http://www.answers.com/topic/trinitarianism), 3 (http://www.answers.com/topic/theosis)

[mastralvarado]

UPDATE

1: Contradiction
1) Trinitarians hold that love is G-d's Love
2) Scientists proved that the Universe is not G-d
3) Some agnostics argued that G-d caused the big bang
4) These agnostics inadvertenly argued that G-d is the gnostic demiurge.

Therefore these agnostics contradicted themselves.

2: Hypocrisy
1) Einstein's theory can be used to prove that matter can be converted into faith using hypostasis
2) Trinitarians have yet to prove that a mustard seed can be converted into faith using any logical theory
3) Trinitarians agreed that G-d caused the Universe to exist and at the same time love is G-d's Love
4) Inadvertedly they agreed that G-d's Love is the demiurge

Therefore, god loves the demiurge.

[apostoli]

Where does the Qur'an explicitly say G-d is love?From a few sites I've read, if you were a Sufi Muslim you wouldn't be asking - they use the term , at least in English "God is love". So I guess you are not inclined to Sufi Islam. According to Wikipedia "Al-Wadud or 'the Loving One', which is found in Surah 11:90 as well as Surah 85:14. It refers to God as being 'full of loving kindness'". Which is the meaning understood by Christians and explicitly stated at 1 John 4:9-16.

I found out about modalist Oneness Pentecostalism1 and they hold that Jesus was G-d in one will and was fully G-d and Fully man. If I'm not mistaken, these guys would have to pick "b" no matter what they come up with.Some groups might even pick "c".

Chalcedonians — Roman Catholics, Orthodox Christians, and Protestants2 on the other hand hold the unmodal view that Jesus has two wills and has two natures and is really true God and true Man.Not two wills, not two personalities but yes two hypostasis - one of humanity, the other of divinity.

There is a Syrian christian group that holds there is one nature, holding that the the humanity is appended to the divinity, but this isn't mainstream.

So how different is saying G-d has two natures and is truly man and truly G-d with saying G-d has one will and is Fully Man and fully G-d?Jesus is the Son of God, not G=d. The doctrine is about the Godhead of the Father, Son and Spirit. It is a different concept to saying the three are G-d as you understand the term. In simple terms: through the Son, the Father was made manifest; and now the Son is manifest through the Spirit, and so the majesty and mercy of the Father are revealed.

Oneness Pentecostals don't seem that much different than Trinitarians in respect to the hybridness of G-d.Except they believe Jesus is God himself. It gets blured depending on which "oneness" group you talk to. Some seem to have Jesus as a phantasm (God just being veiled by flesh (?) Trinitarians hold that God the Father and His Son Jesus are distinct entities.

Does theosis3 apply to modalists as well as non-modalists such as oneness pentecostals?I don't know. Imu, the theosis teaching at Ephesians 3:14-19 and elsewhere applies to those who follow Jesus. Some groups on both sides and even unitarians understand Colossians 1:19 & 2:9 in this way.

4) Therefore, Oneness Pentecostals are heretics. I'll have a think on propositions 1 to 3. Proposition 4 is on the money.

Thank you for this useful post.You are welcome. For more information read up on sabbelianism and the disputes after Nicea. For a "christian" argument close to your viewpoint: read up on Eunomius.

The more you understand of the early (& modern) debates within christianity the easier it is for me to communicate with you.

Peace

[mastralvarado]

From a few sites I've read, if you were a Sufi Muslim you wouldn't be asking - they use the term , at least in English "God is love". So I guess you are not inclined to Sufi Islam. According to Wikipedia "Al-Wadud or 'the Loving One', which is found in Surah 11:90 as well as Surah 85:14. It refers to God as being 'full of loving kindness'". Which is the meaning understood by Christians and explicitly stated at 1 John 4:9-16.


Apostoli,

I stated as rule in the OP that my beliefs would not be in question. Since you are questioning my beliefs (you are almost scolding me), I ask you, do you want to debate these passages in some other section (Islam or comparative)?

Otherwise, this is just a strawman.

Regards, mastralvarado

[spitndirt]

Why would this statement be impossible:

God is fully God in Jesus, who is fully man.

Now, by fully man I mean - a man as God intends a man to be. This would make 'us' not fully men according to God's intentions. So, Jesus was not a man in every way that we are men.....but was fully man nonetheless - two wills united in one form. "Two become one" is a dominant theme in creation after all......

Peace

[apostoli]

Hello mastralvarado,

From a few sites I've read, if you were a Sufi Muslim you wouldn't be asking - they use the term , at least in English "God is love". So I guess you are not inclined to Sufi Islam. According to Wikipedia "Al-Wadud or 'the Loving One', which is found in Surah 11:90 as well as Surah 85:14. It refers to God as being 'full of loving kindness'". Which is the meaning understood by Christians and explicitly stated at 1 John 4:9-16.I stated as rule in the OP that my beliefs would not be in question. Since you are questioning my beliefs (you are almost scolding me), I ask you, do you want to debate these passages in some other section (Islam or comparative)?I wasn't aware I was challenging your beliefs. I don't know what they actually are. I apologise that I forgot you hold God is passionless.

However, I do recognise a linguistic trap and thus I answered you in a way to avoid a pedantic interpretation of A.John's words, by using the opinion of other Muslims and Wikipedia in regards to a similar idea in the Quran. As Faramir had already explained to you the words "God is love" is a metaphor, as is evident from the surrounding text in 1 John.

To get an understanding of Islam, recently I have been studying the various opinions amonst the various denominations. I just found the Sufi's sites I've read presented a similar perspective as A.John. I'm aware that other teachers hold different views, from God loves all equally to God is without passion.

I don't read Arabic, and so I am dependent on what Muslims relate to me in English about their understanding. So it would be better for you to debate the Quran with a Muslim who has an opposing view to you.

What is your understanding/translation of Al-Wadud?

Peace

[Abelard]

Apostoli - The attribute The Loving, or The Kind One, is only one of 99 'names of God'. The 99 attributes are descriptive, not definitive. Not only would it be incorrect to say any one single attribute describes God adequately, the use of the number 99 indicates an intentional incompleteness. To say God is all of the 99 attributes would still be insufficient.

Exegetical methods from the Qu'ran and the Bible are completely different. We Christians have no literature which is directly comparable to the Qu'ran; the Bible is more comparable to Islamic hadith. In the Qu'ran every surah can stand alone; in the Bible, not one verse can be taken out of context.

[mastralvarado]

Apostoli - The attribute The Loving, or The Kind One, is only one of 99 'names of God'. The 99 attributes are descriptive, not definitive. Not only would it be incorrect to say any one single attribute describes God adequately, the use of the number 99 indicates an intentional incompleteness. To say God is all of the 99 attributes would still be insufficient.

Exegetical methods from the Qu'ran and the Bible are completely different. We Christians have no literature which is directly comparable to the Qu'ran; the Bible is more comparable to Islamic hadith. In the Qu'ran every surah can stand alone; in the Bible, not one verse can be taken out of context.

Both Abelard and Apostoli and others,

Getting back to the topic. As it is stands now, I win if you can't prove Trinity is useful for anyone else except a Trinitarian's peace of mind (and thereby exposing them). I'm waiting for you to show me how the Trinity can benefit mankind's peace of mind or even a single non-trinitarian's peace of mind. If I don't read anything worth commenting on, I will not respond.

You could for example show that science has advanced with the help of this union, and include that formula or hypostasis.

regards,

mastralvarado

[JSDileo]

2: Hypocrisy
1) Einstein has proven that matter can be converted into faith
2) Trinitarians have yet to prove that deeds can be converted into faith using "triangular" agape love
3) Some trinitarians agreed that G-d caused the Universe to exist and at the same time G-d is agape love
4) Inadvertedly they agreed they that G-d is the Demiurge

Therefore, G-d is Agape Love and at the same time the Creator of the Physical Universe!

:lmbo:

[Abelard]

I'm waiting for you to show me how the Trinity can benefit mankind's peace of mind or even a single non-trinitarian's peace of mind.

Peace of mind has nothing to do with anything. The Trinity accounts for facts in evidence - the ones we agree upon include Jesus' virgin birth, the healing of the sick and resurrection of the dead, as well as Jesus' coming down from heaven as the final judge and arbiter.

In some ways Islam has the second person of the Trinity even more God like than Christianity. In Islam you have the story of Jesus breathing life into the clay birds. That story was rejected from the Christian canon, but demonstrates Jesus' divinity if one accepts the tale.

But if it's a rational, Kantian argument you want I propose that without the doctrine of the Trinity we would not have Islam at all. Instead Muhammad would have stuck closer to the Ebionite and Nestorian Christianities he started with.

So all Muslims owe some of their peace of mind to the Trinity.

[apostoli]

Hello Abelard;
Apostoli - The attribute The Loving, or The Kind One, is only one of 99 'names of God'. The 99 attributes are descriptive, not definitive. Not only would it be incorrect to say any one single attribute describes God adequately, the use of the number 99 indicates an intentional incompleteness. To say God is all of the 99 attributes would still be insufficient.

Exegetical methods from the Qu'ran and the Bible are completely different. We Christians have no literature which is directly comparable to the Qu'ran; the Bible is more comparable to Islamic hadith. In the Qu'ran every surah can stand alone; in the Bible, not one verse can be taken out of context.Thankyou for your insight.

May I suggest we accept 1 Cor 1:23-27, ignore the self wise and revel in our foolishness.

Peace

[Abelard]

I think it's important for people to realize Islam and Christianity are first cousins. Orthodox Christianity chased the Ebionites, Nestorians and other heretical sects out towards Arabia. Muhummad rejected those heretical Christianities, but so did the Roman church. And we Christians were much meaner than Muhummad when we caught them.

The Trinity/Christianity Muhummad rejected was not the Trinity/Christianity we know today. Imagine Muhummad as a native American in Utah whose introduction to Christianity was a polygamist Mormon sect. Would you be surprised to he spoke negatively of Christianity, but managed to still base much of his religion on the Bible?

[anewlife]

Both Abelard and Apostoli and others,

Getting back to the topic. As it is stands now, I win if you can't prove Trinity is useful for anyone else except a Trinitarian's peace of mind (and thereby exposing them). I'm waiting for you to show me how the Trinity can benefit mankind's peace of mind or even a single non-trinitarian's peace of mind. If I don't read anything worth commenting on, I will not respond.

You could for example show that science has advanced with the help of this union, and include that formula or hypostasis.

regards,

mastralvarado

Say what?

Would Trinitarians win if you cannot prove Islam is useful for anyone else except for a Mulsims peace of mind?

Sounds like someone has an agenda here...

We do not debate to win, we debate to find truth.

Geesh:teeth: