So, I will take from your failure to answer that you do not understand the trinity.
What a shame... but I suspected nothing less.
And do I understand God.... I would say I understand Him a lot better than you, if you accept the absurd myth of a trinity.
you can ask questions but apparently seem to think that you are either above (or better, unable) to answer them yourself, how sad, could have predicted that...
for nothing you have posted shows that the doctrine of the Trinity is absurd or a myth. Or do you think that it is true just because it is you who is saying so? ROFLOL!!! You must think you are a Pope and you can speak by divine fiat, and, lo... it is so!!! But you are the Pope of a denomination of one, the first church of Gary51!! lol.... and I don't belong to that church, so your attempts to speak ex cathreda have no effect on me or the millions of Christians who believe in the biblical doctrine of the Trinity.
at any rate... you are equivocating when you say that you understand God, for the point I made was that neither you, nor anyone else fully and comprehensively understands God such that you can exhaustively explain Him. The only one that can do so is the second person of the godhead, Jesus Christ.
John 1:18 (NASB) No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him."
And since you are unable to exhaustively explain God to me, I have to conclude, based on your reasoning (or lack thereof) that you do not actually believe in God.
In any case, I did at least partly explain my belief in the Trinity, and you were unable to even deal with this basic information, and worse, as you set to refute the doctrine, you have let down all other Arians who may have benefited from your erudition. As it is, your failure has only strengthened the position of those who hold to the biblical doctrine of the Trinity, and I personally want to both thank you and congratulate you for doing so. I had hoped and prayed that this would be the case, and the triune God has answered my prayers, through you, an unlikely foil to be sure. But hey, if God can use Ballam's ass, He can use anyone else too.
blessings,
ken
__________________ "The venerable dead are waiting in my library to entertain me and relieve me from the nonsense of surviving mortals." Samuel Davies 1723-1761
"When I get a little money I buy books; and if any is left I buy food and clothes." Erasumus 1466-1536
Tertullian, who coined the term "Trinity", write his apology against the heretical Modalists "Against Praxis" around the year 200 AD, he died in 220 AD,. This alone, this historical fact, absolutely refutes the idea that the idea of the "Trinity" was "invented" by Constantine at the Council of Nicaea. It was present in the Christian church at least 125 years prior to Nicea, if not earlier.
Furthermore, the idea that Tertullian’s ideas are somehow a capitulation to Greek philosophy is ridiculous.
"He (Tertullian) despised Greek philosophy, and, far from looking at Plato, Aristotle, and other Greek thinkers whom he quotes as forerunners of Christ and the Gospel, he pronounces them the patriarchal forefathers of the heretics (De anima, iii.).
(Wikipedia, Tertullian)
Further information on the Trinity, for your edification:
“Contrary to the claims of skeptics and antitrinitarians, the doctrine of the Trinity does not go against reason, but rather beyond it. There is an unbridgeable difference between these two assertions. The Trinity is a mystery, not a contradiction. Properly formulated, the doctrine declares that "God is one in nature (or essence) and three in person" thus doing no violence to reason. If, on the other hand, the doctrine were to declare that God is "one in nature and three in nature," then, indeed, we would have an irreconcilable contradiction. For, in this case God is said to be both one and three at the same time and in the same sense which is a patent violation of the law of noncontradiction which governs all rational thought and without which all intelligible discourse would be impossible. That the Trinity is logically tenable does not, however, alter its status as an intractable theological mystery. How the three Persons of the Trinity co-inhere one another in the Divine perichoresis, though noncontradictory, is beyond the human capacity to understand. Finitum non capax infinitum, the finite cannot contain the infinite. The doctrine of the Trinity cuts right to the core of the very constituent nature of God. For this reason, the doctrine is an essential teaching of the Christian faith with salvific import. For, as we have seen, it is inextricably interwoven with Who Christ is--the Author and Perfecter of our faith (Hebrews 12:2). To reject the Trinity is to reject the God Who Is.” (Founders Journal · Winter 2003 · pp. 18-20; The Importance of Defending the Trinity; Gannon Murphy)
"Again, Scripture sets forth a distinction of the Father from the Word, and of the Word from the Spirit. Yet the greatness of the mystery warns us how much reverence and sobriety we ought to use in investigating this. And that passage in Gregory of Nazianus vastly delights me: " "I cannot think on the one without quickly being encircled by the splendor of the three; nor can I discern the three without being straightway carried back to the one." Let us not, then, be led to imagine a trinity of persons that keeps our thoughts distracted and does not at once lead them back to that unity. Indeed, the words "Father," "Son," and "Spirit" imply a real distinction - let no one think that these titles, whereby God is variously designated from his works, are empty - but a distinction, not a division." (John Calvin)
"A) There is in the Divine Being but one indivisible essence (ousia, essentia). B) In this one Divine Being there are three Persons or individual subsistences, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. C) The whole undivided essence of God belongs equally to each of the three persons. D) The subsistence and operation of the three persons in the divine Being is marked by a certain definite order. E) There are certain personal attributes by which the three persons are distinguished. F) The Church confesses the Trinity to be a mystery beyond the comprehension of man." (Louis Berkhof)
"These Councils decided that the terms Father, Son, and Spirit, were not expressive merely of relations ad extra, analogous to the terms, Creator, Preserver, and Benefactor. This was the doctrine known as Sabellianism, which assumed that the Supreme Being is not only one in essence, but one in person. The Church doctrine asserts that Father, Son, and Spirit express internal, necessary, and eternal relations in the Godhead; that they are personal designations, so that the Father is one person, the Son another person, and the Spirit another person. They differ not as allo kai allo, but as allos kai allos; each says I, and each says Thou, to either of the others. The word used in the Greek Church to express this fact was first prosopon, and afterwards, and by general consent, hupostasis; in the Latin Church, "persona," and in English, person. The idea expressed by the word in its application to the distinctions in the Godhead, is just as clear and definite as in its application to men." (Chalres Hodge)
hope this helps....
blessings,
ken
__________________ "The venerable dead are waiting in my library to entertain me and relieve me from the nonsense of surviving mortals." Samuel Davies 1723-1761
"When I get a little money I buy books; and if any is left I buy food and clothes." Erasumus 1466-1536
Tertullian, who coined the term "Trinity", write his apology against the heretical Modalists "Against Praxis" around the year 200 AD, he died in 220 AD,. This alone, this historical fact, absolutely refutes the idea that the idea of the "Trinity" was "invented" by Constantine at the Council of Nicaea. It was present in the Christian church at least 125 years prior to Nicea, if not earlier.
Furthermore, the idea that Tertullian’s ideas are somehow a capitulation to Greek philosophy is ridiculous.
200-300
Clement of Alexandria consciously used Greek philosophy to define Christian beliefs about God and Christ. The relationship of Father, Son and Holy Spirit developed on a Platonic framework. Tertullian used 'trinitas' to denote the Father, Son and Holy Spirit relationship. .
Neoplatonism is the term for a school of philosophy that took shape in the 3rd century AD, based on the teachings of Plato and the Platonists. Though based on Plato, Neoplatonism is substantively different from what Plato wrote and believed. Neoplatonism is often credited toPlotinus (c. 205-270 A.D.) and his disciple Porphyry (232-c.300 A.D.) expanded Plato's philosophical ideas into something more like a full-fledged cosmology. Porphyry assembled these teachings into the six Enneads Christians, for their part, were deeply suspicious of Platonism and of all the old pagan philosophies that Christianity had superseded. Nonetheless, Neo-Platonism had qualities that made it attractive to intellectual Christians
Tertullian died before neoplatonism existed. It was later intellectual christians that stuffed it down christians throughts via constantine. See especially my bold on the quotes above.
Originally Posted by epi
"Again, Scripture sets forth a distinction of the Father from the Word, and of the Word from the Spirit. Yet the greatness of the mystery warns us how much reverence and sobriety we ought to use in investigating this.
all he is saying here is that 3 is one and 3 is not one. a mystery to be carefull with. which is nonsense.
Originally Posted by epi
passage in Gregory of Nazianus vastly delights me: " "I cannot think on the one without quickly being encircled by the splendor of the three; nor can I discern the three without being straightway carried back to the one." Let us not, then, be led to imagine a trinity of persons that keeps our thoughts distracted and does not at once lead them back to that unity. Indeed, the words "Father," "Son," and "Spirit" imply a real distinction - let no one think that these titles, whereby God is variously designated from his works, are empty - but a distinction, not a division." (John Calvin)
again, he is arguing that 3 is one and 3 is not one. which is the standard nonsensical trinity explanation of how 3 is o ne. 3 is one and 3 is not one. which of course is just plain nonsense masquerading as a deep mystical truth.
Originally Posted by epi
"A) There is in the Divine Being but one indivisible essence (ousia, essentia).B) In this one Divine Being there are three Persons or individual subsistences, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. C) The whole undivided essence of God belongs equally to each of the three persons. D) The subsistence and operation of the three persons in the divine Being is marked by a certain definite order. E) There are certain personal attributes by which the three persons are distinguished. F) The Church confesses the Trinity to be a mystery beyond the comprehension of man." (Louis Berkhof)
all of which is just mystical nonsense. I put the parts that are nonsense in bold.
__________________ God is a spirit (jn 4:24)........... God is not a man...(Nu 23:19) A spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me (Jesus) have (Lu 24:39).....the man Christ Jesus 1 ti 2:5
Last edited by 2ducklow; 2nd May 2009 at 05:34 PM.
again, he is arguing that 3 is one and 3 is not one. which is the standard nonsensical trinity explanation of how 3 is o ne. 3 is one and 3 is not one. which of course is just plain nonsense masquerading as a deep mystical truth.
That's not really the standard explanation at all.
The following linked book is a good primer on the historical developments of the trinity and the struggles of the early church fathers to explain the nature of Christ.
Its often good to look at multiple detailed sources on a subject from a variety of views. If you have any recommended authors or publications against the trinity, I would appreciate it. Admitedly, the only anti-Trinitarian books I've read have all be published by the Watchtower, and it would be nice to see a different perspective.
__________________ "An agnostic is an athiest without balls." - Stephen Colbert
That's right I can ask questions, but it seems that you are unwilliing to answer them! Unless you of course you consider cut & paste and large amounts of text full of plagiarism an answer!
That's not really the standard explanation at all.
the standard trinitarian explanation as to how 3 beings can be one being is to say in some form or other that 3 is one and 3 is not one. that's what all his explanations boil down to. How you gonna prove that 3 is one? Just say 3 is one and 3 isn't one like in this quote from epi "Let us not, then, be led to imagine a trinity of persons that keeps our thoughts distracted and does not at once lead them back to that unity"
trinity of persons = 3 isn't one back to unity = 3 is one.
that's all this guy said, 3 is one and 3 is not one. good explanation, I mean it works on trinitarians like a charm.
Not on me however.
Most trinitarian explanations do not deal with the topic how 3 can be one. Most pretend like it's not a problem. This is probably what you are refering to.
Originally Posted by silva
The following linked book is a good primer on the historical developments of the trinity and the struggles of the early church fathers to explain the nature of Christ.
Its often good to look at multiple detailed sources on a subject from a variety of views. If you have any recommended authors or publications against the trinity, I would appreciate it. Admitedly, the only anti-Trinitarian books I've read have all be published by the Watchtower, and it would be nice to see a different perspective.
plenty of them on line.
__________________ God is a spirit (jn 4:24)........... God is not a man...(Nu 23:19) A spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me (Jesus) have (Lu 24:39).....the man Christ Jesus 1 ti 2:5
Last edited by 2ducklow; 3rd May 2009 at 12:06 PM.
You know what they say... Bull S--t baffles brains.
And that's how they get away with it. If anyone asks questions just give them a load of bull and they'll go away pretending to understand it, rather than appear to be dumb.
95% of church pew fillers simlpy accept what their pastor tells them, never bothering to question it.
it is preplexing how intelligent human beings can and do believe that 3 is one.
__________________ God is a spirit (jn 4:24)........... God is not a man...(Nu 23:19) A spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me (Jesus) have (Lu 24:39).....the man Christ Jesus 1 ti 2:5
the standard trinitarian explanation as to how 3 beings can be one being is to say in some form or other that 3 is one and 3 is not one. that's what all his explanations boil down to.
No, that's what you already decided his explanations boiled down to before reading them.
The liturgical trinitarian phrase you will hear most often is, "God in three persons" not "God is three persons" which is a significant difference.
Originally Posted by 2ducklow
How you gonna prove that 3 is one? Just say 3 is one and 3 isn't one like in this quote from epi "Let us not, then, be led to imagine a trinity of persons that keeps our thoughts distracted and does not at once lead them back to that unity"
He's not saying that at all. You are reading into it.
And you are approaching the subject wrong. To say, "You need to prove that 3 is 1 (which nobody is arguing for anyway)" is the wrong starting point. There are many things about God we don't fully comprehend or understand, yet we see evidence Biblically and Historically for their truth, thus we accept them, and try to understand them later. Did you demand to know the details of how God could create something from nothing before you would accept it?
Originally Posted by 2ducklow
trinity of persons = 3 isn't one back to unity = 3 is one.
that's all this guy said, 3 is one and 3 is not one. good explanation, I mean it works on trinitarians like a charm.
Not on me however.
Again, not at all what the doctrine of the trinity claims, and is a grosse over simplification forced onto what is taught about the trinity.
Pretend I told you that to believe in the existence of a machine that plays both DVD and VCR's is absurb, because a DVD player is one thing, and VCR is another. Thats 2 things, and you are claiming 2 is 1 and 1 is 2. (Probably not the best illustration, but hopefully the point comes across in it)
Originally Posted by 2ducklow
Most trinitarian explanations do not deal with the topic how 3 can be one. Most pretend like it's not a problem. This is probably what you are refering to.
Nobody is claiming 3 is one and 1 is three. Why are you so stuck on this?
Originally Posted by 2ducklow
plenty of them on line.
Having a hard time finding ones that deal with primary sources, lets alone containing citations.
To demand full comprehension of a doctrine before accepting it is hypocritical and an absurd argument.
There are a variety of metaphors that people have presented over the years that try to illutrate the way the trinity works. Obviously none of them alone are sufficient, since there is nothing in this world like God, but when we look at a mosaic of them together, you can begin to understand how a trinity is possible.
Some examples (you've probably heard before)
An Egg: Shell, yolk, and white.
Book: Has a height, depth, and width. Three things that are separate, yet of the same nature, all present in 1 book, but separate from each other.
The Sun: There is the source from which light and heat extend.
The concept of the trinity has much more depth and detail than, "Three is one and one is three," and believing that everything in the trinity, "boils down to that," shows you have never even attempted to understand trinitarian thought.
Its perplexing how intelligent human beings can ignore everything that doesn't fit into their preconceived notions on a subject.
What is your view on Jesus and the Holy Spirit?
__________________ "An agnostic is an athiest without balls." - Stephen Colbert
So, I very much look forward to being enlightened on the existence of the trinity.
I believe the trinity to be a pagan myth adopted into Christianity by Rome around the year 325 AD.
You are free to believe whatever you like.
Meanwhile, if you care to read Genesis, which was written some considerable time before 325 AD, you will see that God the Creator brings everything that exists into being by his word. This is God the Father.
Then you will see a reference to the Spirit of God hovering over the waters. This is the Holy Spirit, or Holy Ghost. Either name will do. He is the Creator Spirit.
Then you will see a reference to God walking in the garden in the cool of the evening. This is God Incarnate, who said, 'before Abraham was, I am', and of whom John says, 'He was in the beginning with God. By him all things were made, and without him was not anything made that was made'.
God in three persons, blessed Trinity. Call it what you will, He is there from the very beginning.
__________________
A bruised reed shall He not break, and the smoking flax shall He not quench.
Linear Mode
