I think given enough time, resources, and research equipment we could figure out a good deal of the workings of outter[sic] space and its parts. While I believe that it is possible I do not believe it is probable. However, the difference with the Trinity is that I not only think it is not probable, but also not possibe[sic].
And I think this line of reasoning is baseless. To say that we could figure out all the complexities (from the micro to the macro level) of the universe, and then turn around and say that no matter what, well never understand the trinity seems quite absurd.
So, in this case, it is only one God, one being. The other three don't actually exist except that they are part of this being, and so it is possible to say that they are divisions of this being -- kind of like how I have five fingers on one hand. The One you described is more like a group of individual parts.
Not really. If you take a finger away from your hand, you still have a hand. However, if you take a point away from a triangle, you do not still have a triangle. The examples are clearly unparallel due to the example of the triangle being composed of necessary truths.
The trouble with the Trinity is that the One is literal, just as the Three are literal -- unless you are saying that the three are not literal; that they are only partial manifestations of the whole: and that is quite different from all accounts of the Trinity I've ever heard -- and so we end up with the same dilemma: one cannot equal three.
It is simply God revealing different aspects of himself to humanity.
In John's account of Jesus' baptism we see Jesus coming out of the water, see the Holy Ghost like a dove, and hear the voice of the Father. If we were to use your described concept, the Father would not be divine; neither would the Son; only as part of the whole would they equal God, and therefore collectively be divine.
Not really. God has always only showed bits and pieces of Himself to humanity (i.e. a theophany of a burning bush). My described concept would not lead to the conclusion you said it would, since each part is still God and as such, is divine by its very nature.
And this is another popular version of the Trinity I've heard of. God (the group) = Father + Son + Holy Ghost. Of course, as I just stated above, this means that each by itself is not fully divine but ony[sic] together.
They are each divine, but just dont capture the fullness of God if separated from everything else. Saying that because one bit of God can be expressed to humanity by itself does not mean that piece is now all of a sudden not divine any more than if I just showed someone my face, it would mean that the rest of my body is not me.
We can refer to each of these points separately, not to divide them would make the triangle no longer a triangle. You are right; and this is what Mormons believe.
And this is precisely what Im trying to say. You cannot separate the Father from the rest of the Godhead, or else God would not be God any more than you can separate a point of a triangle and still call it a triangle.
The teaching isn't in there. Show me where Paul hinted at any confusion about it or where he said, "The Father and the Son is the same being."
Ho, ho, ho
Ill do just that at the end of this response.
So then ask yourself: Why would it not have been a problem? I have been unable to come up with an answer for that. There is controversy about it today. It was even moreso at the time of its ratification. I can't help but think of how confused Christian converts would have been about it. Yet not one epistle addresses the matter.
Ive always thought of it as a given. Youll also notice that the major basis was faith back during the time of the apostles, rather than philosophy or complex thinking as it is now. In fact, Paul writes in Colossians for people to not be taken captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy (Colossians 2:8), and so it does not seem unreasonable that people accepted the testimony of the apostles rather than question theology through intellectual questions.
You know, there were others who agreed with him. It wasn't an isolated belief that Christ had a beginning and was subordinate to the Father. Now, whether Christ (Jehova[sic]) has ALWAYS existed is a matter for futher[sic] debate. What do you think, now or later?
Oh, thats my specialty; my strong hold. If youre willing to drop everything else here so that we could launch into that discussion, Ill take the bait.
Now, many of them were NOT willing to give up their lives for their beliefs. Once the idea was accepted, the persecution died down and eventually the new unified Catholic Church dominated all of Western Europe. If anything, this is an indication that the Creed and the persecution were inversely related.
Considering these were a large collection of Jews who held fast to their monotheism, I dont think they would abandon it so easily to pagan ideas, and the only thing I could think of that would convince them of such a complex doctrine is the Jewish Messiah himself.
Oh, you think you're done? Not quite, my good friend. You have yet to cite any actual evidence to refute what I am saying. I've barely begun to research the Early Christian Church and its development, and it is very interesting...
Then let me begin now.
Throughout scripture, God is said to be a Father. Jesus taught his disciples to pray, Our Father in heaven (Matt. 6:9). God is not only our heavenly Father (Matt. 6:32), but the Father of our spirits (Hebrews 12:9). As God, he is the object of worship. Jesus told the woman of Samaria, Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshippers the Father seeks (John 4:23). He is also called God and Father (2 Cor. 1:3). Paul proclaimed that there is but one God, the Father (1 Cor. 8:6). Theres more, of course, but for the moment, I think this is enough to suffice the case for the Fathers deity.
Now is the case for the deity of Christ. Jesus took the glory of God. Isaiah wrote, I am the Lord [Yahweh], that is my name; I will not give my glory to another, or my praise to idols (42:8) and, This is what the Lord [Yahweh] says
I am the first, and I am the last; apart from me there is no God (44:6). Likewise, Jesus prayed, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began (John 17:5). But Yahweh had said he would not give his glory to another.
While the Old Testament forbids giving worship to anyone other than God (Exodus 20:1-4; Deut. 5:6-9), Jesus accepted worship (Matt. 14:33; 28:17) without a single word of rebuke. Jesus claimed equality with God when he claimed to be the judge of all (Matt. 25:31-46; John 5:27-30), but Joel quotes Yahweh as saying, for there I will sit to judge all the nations on every side (Joel 3:12). Jesus claimed the power to raise and judge the dead, a power which only God possesses (John 5:21, 29). But the Old Testament clearly taught that only God was the giver of life (Deut. 32:39; 1 Sam. 2:6) and the one to raise the dead (Ps. 2:7). Not only this, but Jesus said he would raise himself from the dead (John 2:19-22) while Paul writes in Romans 10:9 that God raised him from the dead. Either Jesus=God, or thats a gapping contradiction. Theres more to this, of course, but I think thats enough to suffice for now.
If youve come this far, and agree with the what Ive presented for the deity of the Father and the deity of Christ, then youve overcome the greatest hurdle in believing the Trinity, since you now believe in a plurality of persons in the Godhead, and have come to acknowledge that the Father=God, Jesus=God, and God=1. You now have your lovely math equation of 2=1 (Ive discussed the logic of this earlier in this reply now it is time to focus strictly on what scripture actually teaches). Lets continue with the final third of this presentation: The Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit is called God (Acts 5:3-4). He possesses the attributes of deity, such as omnipresence (cf. Ps. 139:7-12) and omniscience (1 Cor. 2:10, 11). He is associated with God the Father in creation (Gen. 1:2). He is involved with the other members of the Godhead in the work of redemption (John 3:5-6; Romans 8:9-17; Titus 3:5-7). He is associated with other members of the Trinity under the name (singular) of God (Matt. 28:18-20). Finally, the Holy Spirit appears, along with the Father and Son, in New Testament benedictions (for example, 2 Cor. 13:14).
That the three members of the Trinity are distinct persons is clear in that each is mentioned in distinction from the others. The Son prayed to the Father (cf. John 17). The Father spoke from heaven about the Son at his baptism (Matt. 3:15-17). Indeed, the Holy Spirit was present at the same time, revealing that they coexist. Further, the fact that they have separate titles (Father, Son, and Spirit) indicate they are not one person. Also, each member of the Trinity has special functions that help us to identify them. For example, the Father planned salvation (John 3:16; Eph. 1:4); the Son accomplished it on the cross (John 17:4; 19:30; Heb. 1:1-2) and at the resurrection (Rom. 4:25; 1 Cor. 15:1-6), and the Holy Spirit applies it to the lives of the believers (John 3:5; Eph. 4:30; Titus 3:5-7). The Son submits to the Father (1 Cor. 11:3; 15:28) and the Holy Spirit glorifies the Son (John 16:14).
Well, I think thats just about it for now. Time to write about other things.
)
