Any Christian philosophers in the group? Question about Trinity explanation -

[tdidymas]

TD -
Thank you for responding to my actual question.

You're asking a similar question to what I am wondering. I've listened to a host of lectures on philosophy, philosophy of religion (both secular and Christian, but predominately Christian) and apologetics which is where I've heard the concept mentioned several times without reference to the source. I firmly believe all truth is God's truth. The Heavens declare the glory of God (Rom 1 and Psa 19). So, while this idea does not come from Scripture, I see no contradiction in Scripture and it makes sense. But, I would like to run it by other Christians who like to think deeply about God.

Secondly, is this, the baseline philosophy of perfection and what it means for God, what we lack an understanding in, explaining why our descriptions/defenses of the Trinity only satiate those who already believe?

Thanks!
Dave

Ok, I'll go with perfection as the way that God expresses His attributes. But then, perfection is a process, not a thing, so it seems unrelated to indivisibility. It seems to me "perfection is indivisible" statement doesn't make sense. It's like saying order is indivisible, this is a nonsensical statement.
TD

 

[sculleywr]

Hi everybody!

It's been a while, but I'm glad to see that while the forums' look has been updated, it appears the same layout and rules are in place.

I have a question about something I've been thinking of, and want to run it by someone who is steeped in philosophy.

Regarding the Trinity, we as Christians often really fall down in trying to explain It. We use a lot of analogies that always break down, and most often fall into modalism, which is un-good. In describing the Trinity, what do you think about linking the perfection of God into the description? I've heard it said that perfection is indivisible. God's nature is perfect. God, Jesus and Holy Spirit share the same perfect nature. Therefore, it is indivisible. Before you think I'm going all Unitarian, as I'm not...or at least I don't think I am, the perfect nature CAN be expressed differently.

As I was out riding my bike today, I thought about a perfect gem - imagine such a thing exists. A perfect gemstone is perfect whether it is mounted in a setting, displayed in a glass case or protected in a vault. Each of these is a different expression, of sorts, of the same perfect gem. What if we were to suggest God's perfect nature was expressed in three different ways - The Father, The Parakletos - Jesus, The Other Parakletos - Holy Spirit. God's nature is not defined by location or what physically houses It. But, the roles of the Three are different. They are separate expressions of the same perfect nature. This is how I imagine the Triune nature of God.

Muslims and Jews claim we are polytheists. But, I think this is a lack of understanding God's attributes and what perfection means (it's indivisible).

What do you think?

Thanks for any discussion-
Dave

I would agree that there is a bit of confusion with Modalism's explanation of the Trinity in your explanation. I'm a computer nut, so I tend to think of the Trinity in terms of computers. Inside a computer, your basic parts that are needed are a hard drive, a processor, and an input-output device. If your hard drive were a Solid State drive, then it would be, essentially, built out of the same exact things that the other two devices are made of, having, as it were, the same nature (Consubstantial). However, there are things you can say of each of the three parts that you cannot say of the other two parts. You can say the Hard Drive stores data, but you cannot say that the Processor stores data. You can say that the Processor takes two pieces of data and produces a new set of data from those two pieces. But you couldn't say that of the Hard Drive or the I/O device. And you could say the I/O device displays data and brings new data in to the Processor for interpretation, but not say that of the Hard Drive or Processor.

In this, you could say that each and every device is made of transistors, silicon, and logic gates. In this, those would be the essence of the computer parts. But their energies, the things which they do, are unique.

The Trinity is kinda the same. You can say God is Holy, and we know you are talking of all three Persons of the Trinity. You can say God is man, and we know you are only talking of the Son. What can be said of one, but not another, is unique to the one. And what can be said of two, can always be said of the third.

 

[daveleau]

Ok, I'll go with perfection as the way that God expresses His attributes. But then, perfection is a process, not a thing, so it seems unrelated to indivisibility. It seems to me "perfection is indivisible" statement doesn't make sense. It's like saying order is indivisible, this is a nonsensical statement.
TD

TD, Why do you think perfection is a process? God is perfect, and does not strive for perfection. On the perfection is indivisible portion, here's what I have heard and am mulling over: If there is a perfect nature, it cannot change, or else it would no longer be perfect. Thus, it cannot be divided and God's Triunity cannot be different in nature due to the impact it would have on Trinity's perfection.

 

[Bible2+]

daveleau said in post 6:

Does the idea of wrapping in the philosophical concept of perfection's indivisibility help explain the Triune Godhead?

Regarding "the philosophical concept of perfection's indivisibility" can anyone quote from, for example, Plato, with regard to this?

E.g., were the Platonic "Forms" perfect?

If so, did this require that they were "God"?

And if there were an infinite number of perfect "Forms", were there an infinite number of perfect manifestations of "God"?

E.g., was the perfect Form of "chair" a perfect manifestation of "God"?

If so, wither the Trinity?

Or did Plato have 3 highest "Forms" from which all the others were expressed?

--

Also, from a scriptural point of view, does the "perfection" of believers (Matthew 5:48; 2 Timothy 3:17) require that they are God?

*******

daveleau said in post 14:

Giving the old normal answers to new questions is why we are losing our youths.

Not if "the old normal answers" are what the scriptures themselves show. For:

2 Timothy 3:15 ...from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

2 Timothy 4:1 ¶I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;
2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

daveleau said in post 14:

We've abdicated the intellectual field to the opponents.

Note that Biblical Christianity will always be foolishness to "the intellectual field" per se:

1 Corinthians 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

*******

daveleau said in post 20:

Secondly, is this, the baseline philosophy of perfection and what it means for God, what we lack an understanding in, explaining why our descriptions/defenses of the Trinity only satiate those who already believe?

No, for if the scriptures themselves never "satiate" an unbeliever, then nothing else ever will. For if he rejects the scriptures until he dies, then he wasn't elect.

That is, the elect are those individuals, whether Jews or Gentiles, who were chosen (elected) and predestinated by God before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4-11; 2 Thessalonians 2:13), before they were born (Romans 9:11-24), to become initially saved by faith at some point during their lifetime (Acts 13:48b). This initial salvation is possible only because of Jesus' sacrifice (Romans 3:25-26), which was also foreordained by God before the foundation of the world (Revelation 13:8; 1 Peter 1:19-20).

Everyone on his own is wholly corrupt (Romans 3:9-12), and so it is impossible for people on their own to ever believe in Jesus and the gospel and be initially saved (1 Corinthians 15:1-4, John 20:31; 1 John 5:13) through their own will (Romans 9:16, John 1:13, John 6:65) or their own intellect (1 Corinthians 1:18 to 2:16). Unsaved people can't understand the gospel (1 Corinthians 2:14; 1 Corinthians 1:18) because only initially saved people, who have received the miraculous gift of some measure of God's own Spirit, can understand it (1 Corinthians 2:11-16).

The nonelect can't ever believe in Jesus and the gospel and be initially saved, even when they are shown the truth (John 8:42-47, John 10:26, Matthew 13:38-42), because the ability to believe in Jesus and the gospel comes only to the elect (Acts 13:48b) wholly by God's grace as a miraculous gift from God (Ephesians 2:8, John 6:65; 1 Corinthians 3:5b, Romans 12:3b, Hebrews 12:2) as the elect read (or hear) God's Word the Bible (Romans 10:17, Acts 13:48, Acts 26:22-23), just as the ability to repent comes only as a miraculous gift from God (2 Timothy 2:25, Acts 11:18). Satan blinds the minds of unbelievers so that on their own they can't repent and acknowledge the truth of God's Word (2 Corinthians 4:4; 2 Timothy 2:25-26).

 

[Bible2+]

tdidymas said in post 2:

Trinitarian belief is summed up in these 3 statements:
The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct Divine Persons
Each Divine Person is fully God
There is only one God

That's right.

And so before we worry about how to "explain" how the Trinity can even be possible, we should first show that it is simply a fact, as the scriptures themselves show.

For they show that Jesus Christ is God (John 1:1,14, John 10:30, John 20:28, Titus 2:13, Philippians 2:6, Matthew 1:23). And he is uncreated God, just as God the Father is uncreated God. For everything created was created by Jesus (John 1:3, Colossians 1:16-17). Because Jesus is uncreated, there was never a time when he was not. He has always existed. He is YHWH the Holy One, from everlasting (Habakkuk 1:12a, Acts 3:14, Micah 5:2c). He is YHWH the only Savior (Isaiah 43:11, Titus 2:13), YHWH the good shepherd (Psalms 23:1, John 10:11, Mark 10:18), YHWH who will set his feet on the Mount of Olives at his return (Zechariah 14:3-4, Acts 1:11-12), YHWH the first and last (Isaiah 44:6, Revelation 2:8), YHWH the great I AM (Exodus 3:14, John 8:58), the great God (Titus 2:13), the mighty God (Isaiah 9:6), one God with God the Father (John 10:30, John 20:28), equal in divinity with God the Father (Philippians 2:6).

Just as the Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19) is the 3 distinct, coexisting Persons (Mark 1:9-11) of God the Father (Galatians 1:3), God the Son (Hebrews 1:8), and God the Holy Spirit (cf. Mark 13:11 and Matthew 10:19-20; Acts 5:3-4), so the Trinity is YHWH the Father, YHWH the Son, and YHWH the Holy Spirit. For YHWH is the only God (Isaiah 45:5-6). He has always been and forever will be the only God (Isaiah 43:10b).

-

There are so many different ways to illustrate the Trinity (the Tri-Unity of God), that it shouldn't be difficult for every Christian to get at least some realization of it. While there is no sufficient analogy to completely explain God (Isaiah 40:18), how he can be one God (John 10:30) and yet 3 Persons at the same time (Matthew 3:16-17), the Bible does refer to God speaking things into existence (Genesis 1:24; Hebrews 11:3). And what he spoke was his Word, who is that Person of the Trinity who has become flesh in Jesus Christ (John 1:1,14; 1 Timothy 3:16, Luke 24:39). But God the Word existed even before God the Father spoke anything into existence, for all things created were created by God the Word (John 1:1-3, Colossians 1:16-17). And the original Greek word in John 1:1,14 for "Word" is "Logos", which refers not only to spoken words, but also to any ordered thoughts. God has always had ordered thoughts, so God the Word has always existed.

So a human analogy for God would have God the Father as the mind, and God the Word as the ordered thoughts, speech, and writings (incarnate words) of that mind. God the Holy Spirit would be analogous to the breath (spirit) which is inextricable from human speech, and also from ordered thought, in that a non-breathing person is dead and his brain has no thoughts. God the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:3-4) is one God with God the Father and God the Word because the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father (Matthew 10:19-20 & Mark 13:11) and the Spirit of the Word (John 14:16-18, Romans 8:9). While an individual human isn't 3 persons, the truth about God can still be grasped by looking at man's design, for man was made in God's image (Genesis 1:26). Just as an individual man has his word (Revelation 12:11) and his spirit (1 Thessalonians 5:23), so the one God has his Word (John 1:1) and his Spirit (Romans 8:9). But the one God is so infinitely greater than man (Isaiah 40:17) that the Word of God and the Spirit of God are distinct Persons within his single being.

Besides the analogy of a single human's mind, thoughts/speech/writings, and breath, the Trinity can be compared to the single sun's sphere, light, and heat. The Father would be analogous to the sun's sphere, which is invisible to humans except for its visible light, which is analogous to the incarnate, visible Word (Colossians 1:15, John 14:9). And the sun is felt by humans via its invisible, infrared rays, which would be analogous to the Spirit. The Trinity can also be compared to water, which even though it is one substance, it can exist in 3 states of solid, liquid, and gas at the same time (such as in a water pitcher 2/3 full with water and ice cubes, and with water vapor filling the top 1/3 of the pitcher). The Trinity can also be compared to space, which even though it is one area, it consists of 3 dimensions at the same time. The Trinity can also be compared to 1 x 1 x 1 = 1, or to 1a x 1b x 1c = 1abc.

-

But someone might ask: "So does God pray to himself?" The answer to this would be that Jesus prays to God the Father (e.g. John 11:41-42) because even though Jesus is God (John 1:1,14), at the same time he is also human just like we are human (Hebrews 2:17). And so, as a human, he has a God and Father just like we do (John 20:17). Before Jesus became our eternally-human mediator/high priest (1 Timothy 2:5, Hebrews 2:17, Hebrews 7:24-26), and the only-begotten (only-born) Son of God (John 3:16), the only human ever born without any human father (Luke 1:34-35), he preexisted (John 17:5, John 8:58) from all eternity as God the Word (John 1:1,14; 1 Timothy 3:16). He has always been, and still is, even now in human flesh (Luke 24:39; 2 John 1:7), one God with the Father (John 10:30, John 20:28, Titus 2:13), equal in divinity with the Father (Philippians 2:6, Revelation 2:8b, Isaiah 44:6).

 

[tdidymas]

TD, Why do you think perfection is a process? God is perfect, and does not strive for perfection. On the perfection is indivisible portion, here's what I have heard and am mulling over: If there is a perfect nature, it cannot change, or else it would no longer be perfect. Thus, it cannot be divided and God's Triunity cannot be different in nature due to the impact it would have on Trinity's perfection.

Your words:
Perfection is how God exhibits His attributes

I'm simply trying to use your usage of the word, although I asked you to define perfection in my previous post, but if you don't define it, I can only see how you are using the word as how you are defining it.

If perfection is the condition of something, such as "this thing is in a perfect condition," then perfection is an attribute, because the condition of the thing is an attribute of the thing. But you denied that perfection the way you are using it is an attribute. You stated that it is how God exhibits His attributes. So then, if perfection the way you are using it means how something is done, then that is a process.

So then, what is it? You need to define perfection clearly so that I can understand what you are trying to say. If it is not an attribute and it is not a process, then what is it?
TD

 

[daveleau]

Your words:
Perfection is how God exhibits His attributes

I'm simply trying to use your usage of the word, although I asked you to define perfection in my previous post, but if you don't define it, I can only see how you are using the word as how you are defining it.

If perfection is the condition of something, such as "this thing is in a perfect condition," then perfection is an attribute, because the condition of the thing is an attribute of the thing. But you denied that perfection the way you are using it is an attribute. You stated that it is how God exhibits His attributes. So then, if perfection the way you are using it means how something is done, then that is a process.

So then, what is it? You need to define perfection clearly so that I can understand what you are trying to say. If it is not an attribute and it is not a process, then what is it?
TD

Sorry for the sloppy language, TD. I think Bible2+ helped a bit in his first paragraph when it comes to the perfection discussion. Both Plato and Aristotle in discussing the forms have some merit and influence here. Perfection is the ultimate unimprovable quality of something. So, in essense, it is kind of like a Platonic or Aristotelian form. For instance, God's nature is the ultimate unimprovable nature. God's love, His holiness, etc. Pretty much each attribute is perfect (ultimate and unimprovable). My definition might be far from perfect, though.

Once divided or changed from the perfect form of the attribute found only in God, then the attribute no longer exists in the state of perfection. In thinking of God's nature, if His nature is perfectly divine, perfectly loving, perfectly holy, etc (and I believe it is) and the Son's and Spirit's natures are also perfect in the same ways, then they are identical.

...Ah drat, the more I talk about this the more it seems like Modalism.

But, can a perfect attribute change?


Where you said:
"Trinitarian belief is summed up in these 3 statements:
The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct Divine Persons
Each Divine Person is fully God
There is only one God"
I agree 100%. My concern is trying to overcome the intellectual obstacle some Muslims and Jews have when discussing this with them. They see this as contradictory. They see this as polytheism. Overcoming intellectual obstacles is like changing the soil in the Parable of the Sower. There's nothing saying we cannot change the soil. Paul works to do this repeatedly with his varied arguments for Christ in Acts. When we use the same rote answers to new questions, we fail - and rightfully so - because we have not followed Scripture's example of understanding our audience and packaging the Truth in ways most amenable to the audience.

 

[tdidymas]

Perfection is the ultimate unimprovable quality of something.

But, can a perfect attribute change?

Since by definition an attribute is a quality of something, then perfection is an attribute by definition.

But none of the attributes of God change, because God is immutable. From that standpoint one could say that God's perfection is unchangeable. But not indivisible, because we all are made in God's image, which means we have some small portion of most of His attributes (the communicable attributes). Even perfection is a communicable attribute, except that mankind has lost so much of it, that it rarely shows, and that only in few specific things, not in all aspects of our fallen humanity. The image of God in us points to God as the source. God can express any of His attributes any time, anywhere, in whatever intensity He so chooses.

George Whitefield once said "Don't try to understand that you might believe, but rather believe that you might understand." The nature of unregenerate people is that they judge God because they are not submitted to the truth. Therefore, they feel like they have to understand before they can believe. But since the devil has blinded their minds, they cannot understand, therefore they cannot believe through understanding. This is why the gospel must be preached.

What might be better said to intellectuals is: "If you cannot understand the workings of the 11 dimensions of the physical universe, then how can you understand the nature of God who is dimensionally infinite, who transcends both the physical and the metaphysical universe?" We believe the Bible, because we know and experience it to be the word of God. Therefore, we have no issue with the nature of the Triune God being a mystery to us. But the atheist who demands to understand the Trinity before they believe is like the pharisee who demands a miracle from Christ before they will believe. It's a catch-22, and circular reasoning, and the only way out of the atheist circle is to get into the Christian circle.

One person who is reaching atheists is Lee Strobel, who used to be an atheist himself (he wrote "The Case For Christ"). His method is historical investigation. I commend you for your willingness to debate with atheists. My experience with them is that no matter what you say and how much you explain, they will always have some objection to submission to truth, there is always yet another matter to debate.
TD

 

[Bible2+]

daveleau said in post 27:

When we use the same rote answers to new questions, we fail - and rightfully so - because we have not followed Scripture's example of understanding our audience and packaging the Truth in ways most amenable to the audience.

One way to help Muslims understand how Jesus can be God, from everlasting, is to question them about their understanding of the Muslim belief regarding the Koran. For Islam says that there was no time when the Koran didn't exist in a spiritual form in heaven, that it has always coexisted with Allah as his word. So Christians can show Muslims that the Bible says that before Jesus' incarnation, there was no time when he didn't exist in a spiritual form in heaven. He has always coexisted with God the Father as God the Word (John 1:1,14).

This isn't to suggest that the Muslim claim regarding the Koran is true, or that the book itself is true. Indeed, because Islam falsely claims that the anti-gospel Koran came through the angel Gabriel, it is one fulfillment of Galatians 1:8-9 (cf. 2 Corinthians 11:14).

Islam is an anti-gospel religion because, even though it affirms that Jesus is the Christ (e.g. Koran 4:157, Koran 5:17,75), it denies that Jesus is the human/divine Son of God (Koran 9:30, Koran 4:171, Koran 5:72). And it denies that he suffered and died on the Cross for our sins (Koran 4:157) and rose physically from the dead on the 3rd day. In order to be saved, people have to believe the gospel that Jesus is both the Christ and the human/divine Son of God (John 3:16,36; 1 John 2:23), and that he suffered and died on the Cross for our sins and rose physically from the dead on the 3rd day (1 Corinthians 15:1-4, Luke 24:39,46-47, Matthew 20:19, Matthew 26:28).

The reason why it is necessary to believe these things in order to be saved is because it was only as the human/divine Son of God that Jesus' suffering during his Passion could satisfy God the Father's justice (Isaiah 53:11), which requires an infinite amount of human suffering for sin (Matthew 25:46).

Jesus' suffering during his Passion was sufficient to forgive the sins of everyone (1 John 2:2), because Jesus isn't just a human, but also God (John 1:1,14, John 10:30, John 20:28). His soul is infinite, and so the suffering of his soul (Isaiah 53:11, KJV) was infinite in amount, even though it wasn't infinite in duration. And so his suffering could satisfy God the Father's justice (Isaiah 53:11, KJV; 1 Peter 3:18), which requires an infinite amount of human suffering for sin (Matthew 25:46). Because humans who aren't God have finite souls, for them to suffer an infinite amount for their sins, they must suffer over an infinite duration of time (Matthew 25:46, Revelation 14:10-11, Mark 9:46).

Every human has sinned (Romans 3:23), except Jesus (Hebrews 4:15b; 2 Corinthians 5:21). But because Jesus suffered for sins (1 Peter 3:18, Isaiah 53:11, KJV) an infinite amount, when the elect repent from their sins and believe in Jesus' human/divine sacrifice, they can have their past sins forgiven (Romans 3:25-26, Matthew 26:28), while God the Father's justice remains fully satisfied by Jesus' suffering for their sins (Isaiah 53:11, KJV; 1 Peter 3:18).

 

[Neogaia777]

Hi everybody!

It's been a while, but I'm glad to see that while the forums' look has been updated, it appears the same layout and rules are in place.

I have a question about something I've been thinking of, and want to run it by someone who is steeped in philosophy.

Regarding the Trinity, we as Christians often really fall down in trying to explain It. We use a lot of analogies that always break down, and most often fall into modalism, which is un-good. In describing the Trinity, what do you think about linking the perfection of God into the description? I've heard it said that perfection is indivisible. God's nature is perfect. God, Jesus and Holy Spirit share the same perfect nature. Therefore, it is indivisible. Before you think I'm going all Unitarian, as I'm not...or at least I don't think I am, the perfect nature CAN be expressed differently.

As I was out riding my bike today, I thought about a perfect gem - imagine such a thing exists. A perfect gemstone is perfect whether it is mounted in a setting, displayed in a glass case or protected in a vault. Each of these is a different expression, of sorts, of the same perfect gem. What if we were to suggest God's perfect nature was expressed in three different ways - The Father, The Parakletos - Jesus, The Other Parakletos - Holy Spirit. God's nature is not defined by location or what physically houses It. But, the roles of the Three are different. They are separate expressions of the same perfect nature. This is how I imagine the Triune nature of God.

Muslims and Jews claim we are polytheists. But, I think this is a lack of understanding God's attributes and what perfection means (it's indivisible).

What do you think?

Thanks for any discussion-
Dave

Also might want to take into account that God, any of the three of them (I say three, when they are one, but I don't know what other words to use) anyways none of them can appear to us, I do not believe not even in heaven to the created angels, let alone us here, in their true actual form, but have to take on something lesser, usually a holy angel that is also one with God (the triune God), but are only a more limited part or aspect of God, and cannot contain him all, or all of him, or them...

The holy angels will, and words and messages are not separate from God either, anyways, God usually uses one of them, I would say possess one of them, but they are already have of possess what is necessary to their individual function and purpose, possessed by what is necessary from God, to be what they are, and for what they are to do...

They do not do anything at all, unless God, and here's that word again, though it's not entirely accurate, "possesses" them and "moves" them and gives them words to speak or a message to deliver or act to do or perform, anyhow it is not the individual angel doing it, but God doing it through them, the Holy angels, that is...

God has appeared to us, never in his or their true form to any, for they cannot, being one with "everything" made, and things not yet known by any of us that also might be made (who knows? Only him/them)... God has had to appear, speak, act and do and perform through angels, which are empty in and of themselves, but not with God's spirit in with them...

Acts 7:30-31 is the best example of this, which describes Jehovah's appearance to Moses as an "angel" speaking with Jehovah's voice and words, as if the angel was Jehovah himself, but was not, but Jehovah, here's that word again, possessed and used an angel as a vessel for himself to appear and speak to Moses...

Also Hebrews 2:2- For if the word spoken through angels proved steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just reward,

The Word that is God, speaks through and is transmitted through and by angels, or angelic spirits... Which are only part of God, as everything is, for everything is...

God Bless!

 

[Bible2+]

Neogaia777 said in post 30:

Also might want to take into account that God, any of the three of them (I say three, when they are one, but I don't know what other words to use) anyways none of them can appear to us, I do not believe not even in heaven to the created angels, let alone us here, in their true actual form . . .

Are you thinking of the following verse?

John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

If so, this and 1 John 4:12a mean that no one has ever seen God the Father himself. But people saw a picture of God the Father when they saw Jesus at his 1st coming. For Jesus said "he that hath seen me hath seen the Father" (John 14:9). Jesus is the "image" of the invisible God the Father (Colossians 1:15).

Neogaia777 said in post 30:

The Word that is God, speaks through and is transmitted through and by angels . . .

Note that Jesus himself is the Word that is God (John 1:1,14, Revelation 19:13), and he is still in the flesh, even after his resurrection (Luke 24:39). And while he can indeed give a message through an angel (Revelation 1:1), he still appeared himself in his now-glorified physical body to John:

Revelation 1:13 And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.
14 His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;
15 And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.
16 And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.
17 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:
18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

For Jesus isn't any angel, but God the Son (Hebrews 1:4 to 2:17), and the fully-human (Hebrews 2:16-17) prince over all nations (Revelation 1:5) and all angels (1 Peter 3:22), the Prince of all princes (Daniel 8:25b), princes both human and angelic (Ephesians 1:21, Colossians 1:16), and the Prince of life itself (Acts 3:15).

 

[daveleau]

Since by definition an attribute is a quality of something, then perfection is an attribute by definition.

But none of the attributes of God change, because God is immutable. From that standpoint one could say that God's perfection is unchangeable. But not indivisible, because we all are made in God's image, which means we have some small portion of most of His attributes (the communicable attributes). Even perfection is a communicable attribute, except that mankind has lost so much of it, that it rarely shows, and that only in few specific things, not in all aspects of our fallen humanity. The image of God in us points to God as the source. God can express any of His attributes any time, anywhere, in whatever intensity He so chooses.

George Whitefield once said "Don't try to understand that you might believe, but rather believe that you might understand." The nature of unregenerate people is that they judge God because they are not submitted to the truth. Therefore, they feel like they have to understand before they can believe. But since the devil has blinded their minds, they cannot understand, therefore they cannot believe through understanding. This is why the gospel must be preached.

What might be better said to intellectuals is: "If you cannot understand the workings of the 11 dimensions of the physical universe, then how can you understand the nature of God who is dimensionally infinite, who transcends both the physical and the metaphysical universe?" We believe the Bible, because we know and experience it to be the word of God. Therefore, we have no issue with the nature of the Triune God being a mystery to us. But the atheist who demands to understand the Trinity before they believe is like the pharisee who demands a miracle from Christ before they will believe. It's a catch-22, and circular reasoning, and the only way out of the atheist circle is to get into the Christian circle.

One person who is reaching atheists is Lee Strobel, who used to be an atheist himself (he wrote "The Case For Christ"). His method is historical investigation. I commend you for your willingness to debate with atheists. My experience with them is that no matter what you say and how much you explain, they will always have some objection to submission to truth, there is always yet another matter to debate.
TD

TD, some atheists are truly that way. Those are the ones who (after prayer) I depart from without continuing. I like Strobel, but no author has the mode of argument cornered. No single argument is enough due to the diversity of human thought. That's why both Jesus and Paul shifted their answers and used a variety of tactics. They were both immense philosophers, Jesus being the best philosopher who ever lived. (That's not all He was, He was Prophet, Priest and King...but in reading His statements, He was what all philosophers hope to be - conveyors of Truth.)

We're told to test all things and hold to what is true. We're told to sit and reason with God. We are told to love God with all our mind. The anti-intellectualism Christianity has embraced (like the quote from Whitfield) is a tremendous sin we will have to answer for. We are to always be ready with the reason for the faith we have within us. Faith is not blind, but is something based on reality, evidence and reason. This is why we cannot keep our kids in church. They see reason in the world - not in the Church serving God, the Creator of reason.

(Sorry, going backwards through your post) How can perfection be given in part? Once it is divided, it is no longer perfect, right? If perfection is an attribute, it's secondary in nature, I think. It serves as a descriptor of an attribute. God's nature is perfect. God's holiness is perfect. God's righteousness is perfect. I agree we are made in God's image, but in finding out what that means, I think we have to compare us to other beings. What do we have that others do not that is found in God. Reason is one of these. Love is another. It's nothing physical, as God is not physical.

On the perfection aspect, righteousness and holiness are inherently perfect, I think. You cannot be partly holy or partly righteous.

What do you think?
Dave

 

[Wordkeeper]

TD, some atheists are truly that way. Those are the ones who (after prayer) I depart from without continuing. I like Strobel, but no author has the mode of argument cornered. No single argument is enough due to the diversity of human thought. That's why both Jesus and Paul shifted their answers and used a variety of tactics. They were both immense philosophers, Jesus being the best philosopher who ever lived. (That's not all He was, He was Prophet, Priest and King...but in reading His statements, He was what all philosophers hope to be - conveyors of Truth.)

We're told to test all things and hold to what is true. We're told to sit and reason with God. We are told to love God with all our mind. The anti-intellectualism Christianity has embraced (like the quote from Whitfield) is a tremendous sin we will have to answer for. We are to always be ready with the reason for the faith we have within us. Faith is not blind, but is something based on reality, evidence and reason. This is why we cannot keep our kids in church. They see reason in the world - not in the Church serving God, the Creator of reason.

(Sorry, going backwards through your post) How can perfection be given in part? Once it is divided, it is no longer perfect, right? If perfection is an attribute, it's secondary in nature, I think. It serves as a descriptor of an attribute. God's nature is perfect. God's holiness is perfect. God's righteousness is perfect. I agree we are made in God's image, but in finding out what that means, I think we have to compare us to other beings. What do we have that others do not that is found in God. Reason is one of these. Love is another. It's nothing physical, as God is not physical.

On the perfection aspect, righteousness and holiness are inherently perfect, I think. You cannot be partly holy or partly righteous.

What do you think?
Dave

The problem is not of Christians who are unable to keep their children in church. The problem has been understood by ask philosophers from Socrates, Aristotle and Plato onwards and stated succinctly by Gorgias: life is too dull and painful to make any effort to continue living it. It is therefore meaningless, without fruit.

The only solution to the nihilist's conclusion is to create a meaning, Kierkegaard stating that that meaning is found in religion, right living for the purpose of a future reward.

Thus these are the choices:

Nihilism: life is meaningless and it is pointless to create meaning.

Existentialists: create a meaning, in a universe without any intrinsic meaning.

Absurdists: accept there can be no intrinsic meaning, but rebel against this fact by creating their own meaning.

 

[tdidymas]

TD, some atheists are truly that way. Those are the ones who (after prayer) I depart from without continuing. I like Strobel, but no author has the mode of argument cornered. No single argument is enough due to the diversity of human thought. That's why both Jesus and Paul shifted their answers and used a variety of tactics. They were both immense philosophers, Jesus being the best philosopher who ever lived. (That's not all He was, He was Prophet, Priest and King...but in reading His statements, He was what all philosophers hope to be - conveyors of Truth.)

We're told to test all things and hold to what is true. We're told to sit and reason with God. We are told to love God with all our mind. The anti-intellectualism Christianity has embraced (like the quote from Whitfield) is a tremendous sin we will have to answer for. We are to always be ready with the reason for the faith we have within us. Faith is not blind, but is something based on reality, evidence and reason. This is why we cannot keep our kids in church. They see reason in the world - not in the Church serving God, the Creator of reason.

(Sorry, going backwards through your post) How can perfection be given in part? Once it is divided, it is no longer perfect, right? If perfection is an attribute, it's secondary in nature, I think. It serves as a descriptor of an attribute. God's nature is perfect. God's holiness is perfect. God's righteousness is perfect. I agree we are made in God's image, but in finding out what that means, I think we have to compare us to other beings. What do we have that others do not that is found in God. Reason is one of these. Love is another. It's nothing physical, as God is not physical.

On the perfection aspect, righteousness and holiness are inherently perfect, I think. You cannot be partly holy or partly righteous.

What do you think?
Dave

Firstly, I disagree that Whitefield's statement was anti-intellectual. If it is, then Paul's statement in 1 Cor. 2:14 is anti-intellectual, because it means basically the same thing. Anti-intellectualism is essentially a term meant to be derogatory toward those who base their faith on something other than philosophical ideas.

Secondly, the communicable attributes of God are what make us God's image. If you say that perfection is not a communicable attribute, then a human being cannot do or say anything that points to God's perfection, since it is not a communicable attribute.

Then, what is a descriptor of an attribute? If you say that perfection is a descriptor and not an attribute, then how is it a descriptor? How can an attribute be described, except by the attribute being expressed in some way? Then you have perfection as an attribute of an attribute, which is an attribute, or an attribute of an expression, which also boils down to an attribute. Anything that God does is an expression of Himself, and is said to be an attribute of Him. I just don't see how you can deny that perfection is an attribute.

All the attributes of God are descriptors of Him, and they all are not divisible from Him. God's attributes are all expressed to varying degrees according to His will and purpose. It seems to me that perfection is an attribute of God, because it is what people go toward when they try to accomplish something. Perfection is to some degree expressed if someone gets 100% score on a test, or someone wins an Olympic event. Regardless whether they are conscious of it or not, when we are trying to do something to express excellence, it is a move toward perfection. Obviously it doesn't express an absolute, but it points that way.
TD

 

[Bible2+]

Wordkeeper said in post 33:

The problem is not of Christians who are unable to keep their children in church. The problem has been understood by ask philosophers from Socrates, Aristotle and Plato onwards and stated succinctly by Gorgias: life is too dull and painful to make any effort to continue living it. It is therefore meaningless, without fruit.

The only solution to the nihilist's conclusion is to create a meaning, Kierkegaard stating that that meaning is found in religion, right living for the purpose of a future reward.

Thus these are the choices:

Nihilism: life is meaningless and it is pointless to create meaning.

Existentialists: create a meaning, in a universe without any intrinsic meaning.

Absurdists: accept there can be no intrinsic meaning, but rebel against this fact by creating their own meaning.

Or what about hedonism? I.e. youth could be leaving the church simply because they find it too boring. They would rather gossip with their friends on their smartphones, or play video games, or get high. And if someone invites them to sit in a pew and listen to a lecture on the indivisibility of perfection and the Trinity, they will run for the hills (or to the mall). For they, like most people, can be "lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God" (2 Timothy 3:4b).

But hedonism can ultimately lead to nihilism. For without God, everything can eventually get boring, everything can eventually seem empty.

This brings to mind the response to a young man who started smoking pot, but it got him thinking that everything around him was a thought, causing a panic attack. When he told someone else about this, he was asked:

When you say "everything around me is a thought", do you mean that it feels like nothing really exists? If so, that brings to mind what someone felt in the Bible: "all is vanity" (Ecclesiastes 1:2). There, the original Hebrew word (hebel: H1892) translated as "vanity" can mean "emptiness" (Strong's Hebrew Dictionary), in the sense of everything seeming empty of any lasting existence or value.

Also, when you say "everything around me is a thought", if you mean that it feels like nothing really exists, can you articulate why this instills panic inside you, instead of some other response? For example, Zen masters and Buddhist monks strive their whole lives meditating in order to experience that feeling, which they see as the highest level of enlightenment, which they call satori ("emptiness") or nirvana ("a candle flame blown out"), and which instills in them not panic, but the utmost equanimity. For they think that it is true that nothing actually exists, that the only true reality is complete nothingness.

Of course, from a Christian perspective, this isn't the case, and can cause panic as you fear that the nothingness (that which seems to be the true and only reality) is about to consume everything, including you; that it is about to kill you and turn you into nothingness as well.

But it won't, because God exists. He says "I AM THAT I AM" (Exodus 3:14). And he came into the world as Jesus not to turn us into nothingness. Instead, he says: "I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly" (John 10:10b).

And he does this even though he is "nothingness" himself, in the sense of his not being any "thing", but the very ground of existence for all things (Colossians 1:17). The Hebrew word (El) which means "God" (e.g. Genesis 14:20) also means "nothing" (e.g. Genesis 19:8), insofar as both H0410 (God) and H0408 (nothing) are the same Hebrew word consisting of 2 letters: Aleph and Lamed.

Also, when you say "everything around me is a thought", do you mean your own thought? If so, one way to counteract this is to think: "Okay, if everything around me is just my thought, then I should be able to poke my finger into this wall next to me. I should be able to 'think' my finger into the wall". Then go ahead and try, thinking as hard as you can to make your finger go into the wall. Of course, no matter how hard you think, your finger won't get past the surface of the wall, because the wall has its own existence, separate from your thought.

Or, when you say "everything around me is a thought", do you mean God's thought? If so, try the same finger-into-the-wall trick and you will again prove to yourself that even if everything is God's thought, it still has real existence, real substance. This is because God's thought is so powerful that what he thinks of as existing actually comes into and remains in existence for as long as he wants.

Everything continues to exist by God's power, for "by him all things consist" (Colossians 1:17). We can even think of ourselves as existing inside God in some manner: "For in him we live, and move, and have our being" (Acts 17:28).

God is an infinite Spirit and an infinite consciousness (John 4:24, Psalms 139:7-10, Jeremiah 23:24), so if we exist inside him we would exist in his consciousness, his thought.

A human analogy would be how characters in a novel exist in the novelist's thought. For the characters, their world is just as real as ours is for us. So they think and act in their world just as we do in ours. And their thoughts and actions existing only in the novelist's thought doesn't take away their free will. For as any novelist will tell you, characters take on a life of their own. It is as if the novelist is simply watching in his mind what his characters are doing, and writing it down. But the characters never have a life of their own in the sense that they can ever exist outside of the novelist's thought.

 

[Wordkeeper]

Or what about hedonism? I.e. youth could be leaving the church simply because they find it too boring. They would rather gossip with their friends on their smartphones, or play video games, or get high. And if someone invites them to sit in a pew and listen to a lecture on the indivisibility of perfection and the Trinity, they will run for the hills (or to the mall). For they, like most people, can be "lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God" (2 Timothy 3:4b).

But hedonism can ultimately lead to nihilism. For without God, everything can eventually get boring, everything can eventually seem empty.

This brings to mind the response to a young man who started smoking pot, but it got him thinking that everything around him was a thought, causing a panic attack. When he told someone else about this, he was asked:

When you say "everything around me is a thought", do you mean that it feels like nothing really exists? If so, that brings to mind what someone felt in the Bible: "all is vanity" (Ecclesiastes 1:2). There, the original Hebrew word (hebel: H1892) translated as "vanity" can mean "emptiness" (Strong's Hebrew Dictionary), in the sense of everything seeming empty of any lasting existence or value.

Also, when you say "everything around me is a thought", if you mean that it feels like nothing really exists, can you articulate why this instills panic inside you, instead of some other response? For example, Zen masters and Buddhist monks strive their whole lives meditating in order to experience that feeling, which they see as the highest level of enlightenment, which they call satori ("emptiness") or nirvana ("a candle flame blown out"), and which instills in them not panic, but the utmost equanimity. For they think that it is true that nothing actually exists, that the only true reality is complete nothingness.

Of course, from a Christian perspective, this isn't the case, and can cause panic as you fear that the nothingness (that which seems to be the true and only reality) is about to consume everything, including you; that it is about to kill you and turn you into nothingness as well.

But it won't, because God exists. He says "I AM THAT I AM" (Exodus 3:14). And he came into the world as Jesus not to turn us into nothingness. Instead, he says: "I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly" (John 10:10b).

And he does this even though he is "nothingness" himself, in the sense of his not being any "thing", but the very ground of existence for all things (Colossians 1:17). The Hebrew word (El) which means "God" (e.g. Genesis 14:20) also means "nothing" (e.g. Genesis 19:8), insofar as both H0410 (God) and H0408 (nothing) are the same Hebrew word consisting of 2 letters: Aleph and Lamed.

Also, when you say "everything around me is a thought", do you mean your own thought? If so, one way to counteract this is to think: "Okay, if everything around me is just my thought, then I should be able to poke my finger into this wall next to me. I should be able to 'think' my finger into the wall". Then go ahead and try, thinking as hard as you can to make your finger go into the wall. Of course, no matter how hard you think, your finger won't get past the surface of the wall, because the wall has its own existence, separate from your thought.

Or, when you say "everything around me is a thought", do you mean God's thought? If so, try the same finger-into-the-wall trick and you will again prove to yourself that even if everything is God's thought, it still has real existence, real substance. This is because God's thought is so powerful that what he thinks of as existing actually comes into and remains in existence for as long as he wants.

Everything continues to exist by God's power, for "by him all things consist" (Colossians 1:17). We can even think of ourselves as existing inside God in some manner: "For in him we live, and move, and have our being" (Acts 17:28).

God is an infinite Spirit and an infinite consciousness (John 4:24, Psalms 139:7-10, Jeremiah 23:24), so if we exist inside him we would exist in his consciousness, his thought.

A human analogy would be how characters in a novel exist in the novelist's thought. For the characters, their world is just as real as ours is for us. So they think and act in their world just as we do in ours. And their thoughts and actions existing only in the novelist's thought doesn't take away their free will. For as any novelist will tell you, characters take on a life of their own. It is as if the novelist is simply watching in his mind what his characters are doing, and writing it down. But the characters never have a life of their own in the sense that they can ever exist outside of the novelist's thought.

I remember that I reached the conclusion very early in life that life wasn't worth the pain and the drudgery. When I went to look for answers, I got caught up with Reformed Theology. Basically they taught me what questions to ask and bottle fed me the answers.

My original questions were lost in the excitement, and I even considered a career in indoctrinating others.

So there you have the journey most young people travel. Disillusionment with life, distraction when searching.

Not all persons turn to pleasure seeking to escape reality.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Hi everybody!

It's been a while, but I'm glad to see that while the forums' look has been updated, it appears the same layout and rules are in place.

I have a question about something I've been thinking of, and want to run it by someone who is steeped in philosophy.

Regarding the Trinity, we as Christians often really fall down in trying to explain It. We use a lot of analogies that always break down, and most often fall into modalism, which is un-good. In describing the Trinity, what do you think about linking the perfection of God into the description? I've heard it said that perfection is indivisible. God's nature is perfect. God, Jesus and Holy Spirit share the same perfect nature. Therefore, it is indivisible. Before you think I'm going all Unitarian, as I'm not...or at least I don't think I am, the perfect nature CAN be expressed differently.

As I was out riding my bike today, I thought about a perfect gem - imagine such a thing exists. A perfect gemstone is perfect whether it is mounted in a setting, displayed in a glass case or protected in a vault. Each of these is a different expression, of sorts, of the same perfect gem. What if we were to suggest God's perfect nature was expressed in three different ways - The Father, The Parakletos - Jesus, The Other Parakletos - Holy Spirit. God's nature is not defined by location or what physically houses It. But, the roles of the Three are different. They are separate expressions of the same perfect nature. This is how I imagine the Triune nature of God.

Muslims and Jews claim we are polytheists. But, I think this is a lack of understanding God's attributes and what perfection means (it's indivisible).

What do you think?

Thanks for any discussion-
Dave

This is fun, but there is a lot of truth in it:

It references the Athanasian Creed, which may be the most concise statement regarding the nature of the Trinity. It was compiled to counter heresies in the early Church; some of which persist in certain groups to this day: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasian_Creed

 

[daveleau]

Firstly, I disagree that Whitefield's statement was anti-intellectual. If it is, then Paul's statement in 1 Cor. 2:14 is anti-intellectual, because it means basically the same thing. Anti-intellectualism is essentially a term meant to be derogatory toward those who base their faith on something other than philosophical ideas.

Secondly, the communicable attributes of God are what make us God's image. If you say that perfection is not a communicable attribute, then a human being cannot do or say anything that points to God's perfection, since it is not a communicable attribute.

Then, what is a descriptor of an attribute? If you say that perfection is a descriptor and not an attribute, then how is it a descriptor? How can an attribute be described, except by the attribute being expressed in some way? Then you have perfection as an attribute of an attribute, which is an attribute, or an attribute of an expression, which also boils down to an attribute. Anything that God does is an expression of Himself, and is said to be an attribute of Him. I just don't see how you can deny that perfection is an attribute.

All the attributes of God are descriptors of Him, and they all are not divisible from Him. God's attributes are all expressed to varying degrees according to His will and purpose. It seems to me that perfection is an attribute of God, because it is what people go toward when they try to accomplish something. Perfection is to some degree expressed if someone gets 100% score on a test, or someone wins an Olympic event. Regardless whether they are conscious of it or not, when we are trying to do something to express excellence, it is a move toward perfection. Obviously it doesn't express an absolute, but it points that way.
TD

TD,
On Whitfield, I get what you're saying. It depends on the definition used regarding faith as to whether it is anti-intellectual. If they mean faith without reason, or blind faith, then it is anti-intellectual. But, if it means the faith of Scripture, which is faith based on evidence (not necessarily philosophical, but a variety of evidences given to us by God including but not limited to Scripture), then it is far from anti-intellectual.

I disagree with your point on anti-intellectualism, but it brings up a good point for me. I have read nothing I saw as credible in contrasting people like Moreland's or Peacey's works on reentering the battlefield of ideas by becoming more intellectually engaged with our faith to help others see the Truth. Your comment simply triggered in my mind that there might be viable arguments against becoming more intellectually engaged with our faith. Anti-intellectualism as a term was not brought up against those who reject engaging in philosophical study regarding their faith. Far from it. It focuses on those whose only reason for the hope that is within them is to say "I know because I know it in my knower." When people simply say it's true because I think it's true - or it's true just because it's true - you don't convince anyone. That's why Peter called us to always have a reason or defense, why Paul told us to test all things and why Jesus told us the greatest commandment is, in part, to love the Lord your God with all your mind. When people reject using their God-given, Fall-damaged reason, we get to where we've let ourselves get to over the last 50 to 75 years. A church that fails to get salt into the culture. A church that abdicates the field of argument to the culture.

As for God's attributes, perfection cannot stand alone. Perfection has to be viewed in light of something else. Even if we say (and rightly so) God IS perfect, your talking about His Being. His Being is perfect. His attributes of holiness, righteousness, all-knowingness, lovingkindness, etc are all attributes that could (but do not) exist in Him as something less than perfect. For instance, God's lovingkindness could be a part of God's image in us, but it is not perfect in us. It might be perfectly installed in us as God desires, but it is not perfect lovingkindness because our version of lovingkindness is far from God's expression of it. There is an ideal state or expression of an attribute where it can be called perfect. But, that perfection cannot exist on its own. You have to have something tangible or tangibly expressed to be able to describe it as flawed or perfect.

So, yes, it is a descriptor but it is a contingent descriptor. It relies on something else to be useful and cannot exist on its own aside from the item it describes. Perfection cannot stand on its own.

God exhibits lovingkindness.
What kind of lovingkindness?
God exhibits perfect lovingkindness.

God exhibits perfection. (doesn't work)
What kind of perfection? (doesn't work)
In what does God exhibit perfection?
God exhibits perfection in His lovingkindness.

 

[daveleau]

This is fun, but there is a lot of truth in it:

Ha! Thanks for that. Tis true.

 

[tatteredsoul]

Hi everybody!

It's been a while, but I'm glad to see that while the forums' look has been updated, it appears the same layout and rules are in place.

I have a question about something I've been thinking of, and want to run it by someone who is steeped in philosophy.

Regarding the Trinity, we as Christians often really fall down in trying to explain It. We use a lot of analogies that always break down, and most often fall into modalism, which is un-good. In describing the Trinity, what do you think about linking the perfection of God into the description? I've heard it said that perfection is indivisible. God's nature is perfect. God, Jesus and Holy Spirit share the same perfect nature. Therefore, it is indivisible. Before you think I'm going all Unitarian, as I'm not...or at least I don't think I am, the perfect nature CAN be expressed differently.

As I was out riding my bike today, I thought about a perfect gem - imagine such a thing exists. A perfect gemstone is perfect whether it is mounted in a setting, displayed in a glass case or protected in a vault. Each of these is a different expression, of sorts, of the same perfect gem. What if we were to suggest God's perfect nature was expressed in three different ways - The Father, The Parakletos - Jesus, The Other Parakletos - Holy Spirit. God's nature is not defined by location or what physically houses It. But, the roles of the Three are different. They are separate expressions of the same perfect nature. This is how I imagine the Triune nature of God.

Muslims and Jews claim we are polytheists. But, I think this is a lack of understanding God's attributes and what perfection means (it's indivisible).

What do you think?

Thanks for any discussion-
Dave

Let Intelligence I = Spirit.
Let Offspring P = Child (son)
Let (a) god Q = father

Then, trinitarianism T has the form
T = P+Q+I = 3Q = 3I = 3P

where T is the total representation of the spirit-child-father bundle. This is true if the fsther, son and holy spirit are equal in rank, power, etc.

For Christianity, T =Q > P > I. So,

T = Q > 3P > 3I, with P, Q, and I all contained in T. This says that God the Father is greater than the Son, who is greater than, or equal to the Holy spirit.

This still suggest modes, because any of the three representations (trinity) can be written in terms of the "god" representation.

3I < 3P < Q

or

I < P < Q/3.

But, I and P are contained in Q, and we know from Christianity that Q is infinite. Since infinity is a generator, Q will always be greater than P, and I. But, modal equivalence suggests that P or I can approach some number (around Q/3,) which is absurd. Our "modal" function becomes a product function to address the mathematical issues alone in the comparison.

Let T = Q >> aP(r)*bI(r') - a combination, not addition representation of the Son, and Holy Spirit. The parameters a and b, are just to account for any sums that make up P and I, respectively. They are complex but positive. The parameter r and r' represents the "relationship" each representation has with God the Father.

Since Q --> infinity, we need Him to exist even if there is no relation left in the Son, and Holy Spirit. So, aP(r) < Qexp[-(nr)], and bI(r') < aP(r)exp[-(mr)] with m, n numbers, and n << m. This way, in the beginning, when r=0, we have

Q > (ab)PI - The Father being greater than the product of relation of the Son, and Holy spirit. (This checks out, since God IS the head, and Christ answers to Him.)

Also, the word was with God, and the word WAS/IS God in the beginning. They were in unity. Then, |aP(r)| < |Qexp[-(nr)]| so that at r=0, |aP(0)| < |Q|, differing by parameter a (which we choose as complex, and positive.) Here, we can call r the "unity relation" between God and the Son.

But, the Son, Father and Holy Spirit may be representations of the same intelligence, but they are not the same entities. Christ was separate, and with God in the beginning. His literal words created the universe.

You can break it down any way, but God the Father is separate, but "the same" as Christ and the Holy spirit in the same way my son would be me, and my intelligence and will is the spirit of my action.

None of these things would exist without me, and whatever I give to my son is his - but it comes from my authority, with consideration of my inteigence and will. If I had the power to make my intelligence and will, and my words literal gods endowed with power and purpose, then I would be closer to a "trinjtwrian" situation - but, I would still be separate, as would my son and the intelligence of my will. Just because they are me/came from me/created by me doesn't mean they are the same as me. Even equality does not constitute "sameness,"which I think is a common misunderstanding.