duality not trinity?

OK, but let's just use the language that normally is used. There is one God, and the Father is one of three persons of that entity.


Well, I don't mean any of that and have tried to steer you in the right direction. The Bible calls the Father god, yes, and it also identifies the other two persons of the Bible as god, so....what can we conclude except that in some way this one god has three parts or manifestations, something like that, right?

Very well, I tried.


But you haven't shown that there IS any contradiction. You merely have taken issue with every one of my attempts at explaining the Trinity, always saying that it doesn't make sense to you. Well, that doesn't prove that the Trinity is any contradiction. As I said before, it may prove that I'm not doing as good a job of explaining as I'd hoped to do. Or it may say something about your willingness to believe what I've explained. But it doesn't make the Trinity false or the idea contradictory.


Is there some other way to understand these words you wrote to me...?

"your explanation is very clever in disguising the issue, kudos to you."

You're right about that. The word--and the rest of what the men at Nicaea did--represents a human attempt to put into words a great mystery that the Bible has given us, i.e. how there can be only one god but that three different appearances or incarnations or mentions of different entities, people, whatever are ALSO described in scripture as god.

Nicaea mainly tried to explain how that can be. The churches of today don't just accept that explanation, by the way, but we do accept that the tenets of the Creed are correct. If you don't want to use the Greek terms that those men did, that's fine, but we have to explain it somehow. What you are doing IMO is sidestepping the Bible's teaching by focusing on God the Father as god and refusing to deal with the apparent divinity/deity of Christ and the Holy Spirit.

Sure. We can't say that each of these is an individual being or else we'd be saying that there are three gods...which is clearly unBiblical.

That might be one aspect of your being, although I'd call it nothing more than a preference, nothing more fundamental. Still, you can't say that it's the only aspect of your being, can you? If that is an aspect, the aspects that we've been speaking of regarding God can still be that.


So you are again accusing me of trying to deceive, even though you said you didn't mean that? The point is that words sometimes are not precise...and you are demanding language precision to an unreasonable degree. Of course, you understand most of what I've told you, but you want to play the Devil's advocate by first rejecting this word I use, then saying it could mean something other than I intended, then saying it is the same as another term that I explicitily said it is not, etc. I don't think this is my fault.


Of course they exist.

Agreed.


I did not name three gods.

Well, I am confident that most people can understand it. If you haven't, then I will have to say that I tried, and no one succeeds at anything all the time.

If you have some new questions, I would be pleased to read them. I don't see much to be gained by reading one more time that you don't understand what I've already explained to you several times.

Well, sure. Every verse in the Bible has been second-guessed by someone. But they are rather strong in indicating that Jesus is God in human form and that the Holy Spirit is god. You haven't said anything about them at all.

No, I don't. I consider the whole passage. If you do that, it is unmistakable that John is speaking of Jesus as the one who he says is god. And there are numerous other proofs of Jesus' divinity.

But you asked us to justify what we believe. You did not say that you were interested in disproving the Trinity, just that you didn't understand how we could believe in the Trinity. Naturally, we know that your interpretation of scripture differs from billions of Christians' interpretations. So?

All I see is you claiming that they do. It's just your opinion.

I wouldn't say that. I would ask you to produce the verses that you think show this, and also ask you to explain your interpretation. At no time did you ever ask what leads us to believe that the Bible affirms the divinity of Christ and the Holy Spirit. You simply named the verses that you think add up to something different.

.
But there's a difference. As noted above, you don't take account of the WHOLE passage. If you did, you'd find it almost impossible, logically, to say that it doesn't identify Jesus of Nazareth as God. And then again, what of the other places in the Bible that show him to be God, or appear to? You never mention them, so you are only cherry picking verses to suit your desired conclusion.

I might as well. Whatever you don't understand you immediately claim can't be understood, so that's not much of a basis for a serious conversation IMO.

Thanks. Despite all, I've enjoyed talking with you.

Hey, didn't we say we needed to wrap this up since you have nothing new to add?

If that's what you want them to say. The Bible clearly identifies Jesus as man but also as god. Those are the two natures you said you didn't understand.

But that's not what the passage says. Moreover, it's fascinating, isn't it, that you have said all along that you don't understand any of htis, not nature, not person, not the difference between the Father and the Son, not individual, not being, not any of this. But suddenly you are the expert of experts and your opinion, not your knowledge of the subject, is the final word on the subject. Really?

Factually, maybe 5% of so of Christians believe what you do and almost none of the churches. Even the Jehovah's Witnesses, famous for not believing that Jesus was God, believe that he was more than a man.

it's just your opinon that they don't.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say that when almost everyone is on my side that this proves nothing...but at the same time say that it's "just my opinion." Yes, my opinion and that of 95% of everyone else, too.

Why do you think almost everyone is on the side of the Trinitarians?

It's not because of saying that all the verses in the scriptures that teach about Jesus don't mean anything one way or the other. It's because they don't cherry pick the scriptures, looking for only one or two verses that seem to prove their point, while pretending that all those which go the other way don't exist. And they take account of the whole passages, as you refused to do with John 1.

Again, a mischaracterization of what I said. Of course John 1 proves that Jesus is God. But it is not the ONLY passage or verse in scripture which does. If you say that you don't think that John 1 says what John 1 says,

you still have a number of other verses that teach that Jesus is God.

Well, almost all Christians agree with me that it does. A prudent man wouldn't conclude that he's the only one who can read a passage in the Bible and understand it correctly.

That aside, you have not shown or even attempted to show that it does not. I say that the passage clearly says that the Son was with God and WAS GOD. And it goes on to describe this Son as Jesus. So what is your rebuttal to that very clear language? Oh, it's "I don't think so," and "it's just your opinion." How lacking in credibility is that?

here is my interpretation of john 1.1,

Rotherham) John 1:1 Originally, was, the Word, and, the Word, was, with God; and, the Word, was, God.

interpretation'

originally, was, what God the Father said, and what god the father said was pointing towards god (the Greek prep. here is pros which means towards or unto not with) and what god said was god. (in the same fig. sense as if i said "your words are you albion).

You don't even know which verses I had in mind...and yet you are already prepared to say that none of them say what they do. No one can take that kind of evasion seriously.

I did explain it, my friend. In addition, I offered to agree with you that you weren't comprehending the explanation, because you said you weren't. And I offered to take the blame for this not getting through to you, as though it were purely a matter of your unfamiliarity with the subject. I was being generous enough to NOT say the obvious--that you either can't comprehend what almost anyone else would be able to understand or else that you are unwiling to give a fair hearing to the other side.

Anyway, this is the end because now you are no longer pursuing the reasons why Trinitarians believe as we do but are instead insisting that only your opinion makes sense. That isn't what the OP was all about.

Cheers.

I think the original point about the duality is that while the Father gave up his infinite nature for a finite human form capable of death, the Father and Holy Spirit would remain infinite.... therefor, God would be a duality because the Son humbled himself even below the angels... therefore would no longer be God. Further, Jesus himself said "The Father is greater than I."

If he was ever equal to his father at any point, he certainly wasn't when he said he wasn't.

The trinitarian answer to this is that the person of Jesus had two natures (and continues to have two natures to this day... having a "God" nature and a "flesh" nature even now), yet this person is one of three natures of one being: "God."

So... While Jesus was on earth, he was only 1/2 of 1/3 of a being.

The question this raises is: What died for our sins? Was a "life" sacrificed? Was a soul/spirit killed for payment of our sins? Or, is our salvation based upon nothing more than a human corpse... a "flesh jacket" as stated above? If Jesus' soul was still in "God form" and never died... the only thing destroyed was his human body. And... what was special about it? What made him the messiah was his spotless soul. His body was no more than human.

The words "nature," "person," and "being" are all used.... "interestingly" in trinitarian culture. The few people who attempt to define the trinity will only do so using words in an extremely metaphysical sense... which they won't define... leaving the trinity still undefined.

"Being" ends up being defined hilariously!

"They're three persons in one being?"
"How are they one being?"
"Well, they have individual bodies because they're in multiple places at once....And individual minds because the Father knows the day and hour of his kingdom, while the Son does not... and individual wills because the Son specified that he does not do his own will, but obeys his Father's will. Also, before being arrested, he prayed to the Father, if it was his will, to take 'this cup' from him.... and obviously individual souls/life forces, because one can be dead while the other is alive."
"So... in what remaining way are they one single being."
"The other way."
"..."

"nature" is even worse. Mid way through an explanation, "nature" will shift meanings dramatically. They'll say that there's only one God, and "Jesus" is a "nature" of God... yet Jesus has two independent "natures" ... yet these two natures are still one "person" ... yet... it'll still mean 5 other mutually exclusive things...

when god the son became a man and gave up being god, wouldn't that mean that god at that time was no longer a trinity but a duality of God teh Father and god the son? I mean looking at it from a trinity perspective not my perspective.

when a pup becomes a dog he/she is no longer a pup right?
when a corps rots away to nothing but dust, it's no longer a corps right?
when a ice cube melts to a liquid it's no longer an ice cube right?
so likewise when god the son became a man, he was no longer god the son.


Never heard anyone address this issue before. anythoughts out there?