• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Jesus and the Trinity

Status
Not open for further replies.
H

hybrid

Guest
2ducklow said:
you can simpliify it by answering yes or no to this question
"IS A PERSON OF GOD A BEING?" thus far you haven't answered it.

yes. the person of god is a being.

i think i have explained the doctrine of trinity in an intelligible way .what ever you mean by that question has become irrelevant already so as your line of argument that trinity cannot be understood.

your misunderstanding i think is the result of your misconception of the doctrine. i quess its a common mistake.
 
Upvote 0
M

Monergism

Guest
2ducklow said:
I didn't ask if God is a person or a being.

I asked if a person of god is a being. is god the father a being? is god the son a being? is god the holy spirit a being?

God is a being. But the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are persons. So, God is one substance, three persons. If there are further questions on "person," I can give an explanation from something I wrote up on the Trinity. I could take an excerpt out. If we say that God is a person, it should be understood that God is personal. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are not beings. That would be tritheism, a Trinitarian heresy.

hybrid said:
so that there is one spiritual being we called God.
and God became a Father because he begat a Son.
so there is now One and Still God, the Father
and one son of God, also a spiritual being by virtue of him being a son who possesses the nature of his father.

This is a Trinitarian heresy known as Sabellianism, after Sabellius, a Trinitarian heretic. It is also known as Modalism, since it says that God is a different person in a time of history. That is to say, God has modes.

hybrid said:
It is important to say that the Father is the source and the son is the expression of the source.
hybrid said:
So that the ground of being of the son is from the father.
that the source of deity of the son is in the father .
so that the father is and always be the god of the son.

I don't know what you're teaching.
 
Upvote 0

Simonline

The Inquisitor
Aug 8, 2002
5,159
184
North West England
Visit site
✟28,927.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
Hybrid said:
It is important to say that the Father is the source and the Son is the expression of that source so that the ground of being of the Son is the Father. The source of the Son's Divinity is the Father. Thus the Father is, and always will be, the God of the Son.


Monergism said:
I don't know what you're teaching.

What 'Hybrid' is teaching here is nearly correct (all but the last sentence). The Father is not the 'God' of the Son since they are one and the same Being [Trinity]. I think what Hybrid is trying to say is that the Father is the God of the human Messiah which is theologically correct since the Messiah is a finite human creature (as well as the Infinite Divine Creator) and as a finite human creature, he always prayed to his Father in heaven.

One has to remember that the Messiah's being has dimensions which the pre-Incarnate Trinitarian God does not have (i.e. the finite [human] nature of a creature) and these have to be factored into the equation at the correct points. Therefore the Father is the God of the finite human creature who is the Messiah (Jn.14:28) but not of the eternally begotten Son/Word of God - the Second Person of the Trinity (Jn.1:1; 10:30) who is also the Messiah (welcome to the profound mystery that is the hypostatic union).

Simonline.
 
Upvote 0

2ducklow

angel duck
Jul 29, 2005
8,631
125
✟9,570.00
Faith
Marital Status
Married
monergism said:
God is a being. But the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are persons. So, God is one substance, three persons. If there are further questions on "person," I can give an explanation from something I wrote up on the Trinity. I could take an excerpt out. If we say that God is a person, it should be understood that God is personal. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are not beings. That would be tritheism, a Trinitarian heresy.

a person is a being, a personal being, only god, angels and men are persons. so you are contradicting yourself by saying that persons of god are not beings but persons. if persons of god are not beings then they are not persons and they need to be called something else besides persons.
 
Upvote 0

2ducklow

angel duck
Jul 29, 2005
8,631
125
✟9,570.00
Faith
Marital Status
Married
hybrid said:
yes. the person of god is a being.

then you have 3 gods and you have 3 gods that are one god which is a contradiction. I'll show you the pitfall to this question. if you say that a person of god is a being then you have polythiesm = monothiesm and you have a contradiction as a result. if you say a person of god is not a being then you can't call it a person of god because a person is a being, (man, God, and angels). that would mean every definition of trinity was false. every definition that says trinity is 3 persons of god would not be correct and therefore there would be no definition of trinity except, 'it is unexplainable" because there would be no word for what you call a person. you would have to say god is 3 unknowns in one being, which would be no meaning.
So the pitfall is usually gotten around by triniatarians by never saying if a person of god is a being or not. usually the trinitarian response is to give some vague obscure answere without ever saying if a person of god is or is not a being. you just have to guess what it is from their confused answer. if the trinitarian response is descipherable it usually means both. they usually say a person of god is and is not a being. except it's so obscure no one can see it without much analysis. which most people don't bother to do.
Even the statement "a person of god is not a being" is a contradiciton because a person is a certain type of being, a personal being, a dog is another type of being a nonpersonal being. So actually the statement is " a personal being is not a being" = "a person is not a being". so obviously contradcitory.
 
Upvote 0

Simonline

The Inquisitor
Aug 8, 2002
5,159
184
North West England
Visit site
✟28,927.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
Hybrid said:
so that there is one spiritual being we called God.
Hybrid said:
and God became a Father because he begat a Son.
so there is now One and Still God, the Father
and one son of God, also a spiritual being by virtue of him being a son who possesses the nature of his father.


Monergism said:
This is a Trinitarian heresy known as Sabellianism, after Sabellius, a Trinitarian heretic. It is also known as Modalism, since it says that God is a different person in a time of history. That is to say, God has modes.

Actually bud, it isn't Sabellianism at all, it's Arianism, the belief in the Father and the Son as two separate and distinct Beings as well as two separate and distinct Persons.

Hybrid has not understood that the Nature of God is Immutable (absolutely impervious to and incapable of change) and therefore God cannot 'become' anything that he isn't already (including a 'Father'). Although it is true that the Son is begotten of the Father (the verb 'to beget' here does not mean 'to give birth to' since such an act is impossible for God, 'to beget' in this context means 'to be the cause of', 'to give rise to', 'to be the genesis of'. It is in this sense that the Father begets the Son. However, it is also important to note that the Son is ETERNALLY begotten of the Father and not just 'temporally' begotten in time and space, as the human Messiah was at the Incarnation (which is how non-Trinitarians understand the relationship between the Father and the Son and why they have difficulty accepting that God is Trinitarian at all).

If God, by Nature, is Immutable then there could never have been a point when the Father existed without the Son, otherwise the Divine Nature is not Immutable (not to mention that God could not possibly be Love unless he is Eternally Trinitarian by Nature (1Jn.4:8) independent of the Creation (i.e. God has not become Trinitarian for the purpose of redeeming Creation but will then 'revert' to being Unitarian once the Creation has been redeemed, no, God is Trinitarian regardless of whether the Creation exists or not)).

Simonline.
 
Upvote 0

Simonline

The Inquisitor
Aug 8, 2002
5,159
184
North West England
Visit site
✟28,927.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
2ducklow said:
a person is a being, a personal being, only god, angels and men are persons. so you are contradicting yourself by saying that persons of god are not beings but persons. if persons of god are not beings then they are not persons and they need to be called something else besides persons.

Now '2ducklow' you know he's not articulating himself very well. What he is trying to say is that God is One Being consisting of Three Persons - Father, Son and Holy Spirit. They are not three separate and distinct beings ['tritheism'] only separate and distinct Persons within the One Being [Trinitarianism]

Thus the three Persons of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not beings (plural) but Being (singular) since the Scriptures acknowledge no Divine Being but One - YHWH.

Simonline.
 
Upvote 0

Simonline

The Inquisitor
Aug 8, 2002
5,159
184
North West England
Visit site
✟28,927.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
2ducklow said:
then you have 3 gods and you have 3 gods that are one god which is a contradiction. I'll show you the pitfall to this question. if you say that a person of god is a being then you have polythiesm = monothiesm and you have a contradiction as a result. if you say a person of god is not a being then you can't call it a person of god because a person is a being, (man, God, and angels). that would mean every definition of trinity was false. every definition that says trinity is 3 persons of god would not be correct and therefore there would be no definition of trinity except, 'it is unexplainable" because there would be no word for what you call a person. you would have to say god is 3 unknowns in one being, which would be no meaning.
So the pitfall is usually gotten around by triniatarians by never saying if a person of god is a being or not. usually the trinitarian response is to give some vague obscure answere without ever saying if a person of god is or is not a being. you just have to guess what it is from their confused answer. if the trinitarian response is descipherable it usually means both. they usually say a person of god is and is not a being. except it's so obscure no one can see it without much analysis. which most people don't bother to do.
Even the statement "a person of god is not a being" is a contradiciton because a person is a certain type of being, a personal being, a dog is another type of being a nonpersonal being. So actually the statement is " a personal being is not a being" = "a person is not a being". so obviously contradcitory.

As per usual, you are talking complete and utter gibberish. We have already thrashed this out a hundred times during which time I have learned that you are not interested in seeking Truth only in propagating and reiterating your own inconsistent and internally contradictory theological presuppositions, so give it a rest will ya?!

Simonline.
 
Upvote 0

2ducklow

angel duck
Jul 29, 2005
8,631
125
✟9,570.00
Faith
Marital Status
Married
Simonline said:
As per usual, you are talking complete and utter gibberish. We have already thrashed this out a hundred times during which time I have learned that you are not interested in seeking Truth only in propagating and reiterating your own inconsistent and internally contradictory theological presuppositions, so give it a rest will ya?!

Simonline.
I wasn't talking to you
 
Upvote 0

Simonline

The Inquisitor
Aug 8, 2002
5,159
184
North West England
Visit site
✟28,927.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
2ducklow said:
I wasn't talking to you

No, you'd rather pick on someone whom you know cannot articulate the Truth as well as I can so that you don't look as theologically inept in the altercation. Still, the Truth is still true whether you believe it or not and falsehood is still false whether you believe it or not.

Furthermore, the Truth of objective reality is also absolutely impervious to subjective opinion as you will one day discover (hopefully before it's too late?).

Simonline.
 
Upvote 0

2ducklow

angel duck
Jul 29, 2005
8,631
125
✟9,570.00
Faith
Marital Status
Married
Simonline said:
Now '2ducklow' you know he's not articulating himself very well. What he is trying to say is that God is One Being consisting of Three Persons - Father, Son and Holy Spirit. They are not three separate and distinct beings ['tritheism'] only separate and distinct Persons within the One Being [Trinitarianism]

Thus the three Persons of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not beings (plural) but Being (singular) since the Scriptures acknowledge no Divine Being but One - YHWH.

Simonline.

A person is a being. so saying one being consisting of 3 persons is sayiing the same thing. Do you not know that a person is a being?
a person is always a being. a being isnt always a person. so anytime you say someone is a person by default you are saying a person is a being. non beings, example ideas are the only non beings, everything else is a thing or exists and is therefore a being. a rock is a being a man is a being and a god air is a being, the sun is a being. some are persons some arent. but they all are beings.
 
Upvote 0

Simonline

The Inquisitor
Aug 8, 2002
5,159
184
North West England
Visit site
✟28,927.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
2ducklow said:
A person is a being. so saying one being consisting of 3 persons is sayiing the same thing. Do you not know that a person is a being?
a person is always a being. a being isnt always a person. so anytime you say someone is a person by default you are saying a person is a being. non beings, example ideas are the only non beings, everything else is a thing or exists and is therefore a being. a rock is a being a man is a being and a god air is a being, the sun is a being. some are persons some arent. but they all are beings.

But a Being does not have to consist of only one Person [this is your blind spot]. Just because all finite beings are strictly Unitarian [one being/one Person] it does not follow that the Infinite Being also has to be Unitarian? You are projecting the limitations of finitude back onto the Infinite, defining the Creator by his Creation...squeezing God into a box of human reasoning and logic apart from Divine revelation. You need to go back to the drawing board and learn how to allow the Creator to define his own Creation without having that definition imposed back on the Creator. As long as you continue to ignore Divine Revelation and sit in judgment over God's Word then you will remain in blackest darkness, where eventually there will be 'weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth', if you're not careful?!

Simonline.
 
Upvote 0
M

Monergism

Guest
2ducklow said:
a person is a being, a personal being, only god, angels and men are persons. so you are contradicting yourself by saying that persons of god are not beings but persons. if persons of god are not beings then they are not persons and they need to be called something else besides persons.

Persona Tertullian introduced this Latin term to translate the Greek word hypostasis, which had begun to gain acceptance in the Greek-speaking church. Scholars have debated at length over what Tertullian meant by this Latin term, which invariably translated into English as "person" (on which see pp. 267-73). The following explanation commands a wide degree of assent, and casts some light on the complexities of the Trinity.

The term persona literally means "a mask," such as that worn by an actor in a Roman drama. At this time, actors wore masks to allow the audience to understand which of the different characters in the drama they were playing. The term persona thus came to have a developed meaning, along the lines of "the role that someone is playing." It is quite possible that Tertullian wanted his readers to understand the idea of "one substance, three persons" to mean that the one God played three distinct yet related roles in the great drama of human redemption. 1

The Persons are "distinct, yet not divided, different, yet not separate." You have a totally different definition of "person." I concede that the term coined by Tertullian isn't the best and can cause confusion (which I see you are utterly confused).

Simonline said:
Actually bud, it isn't Sabellianism at all, it's Arianism, the belief in the Father and the Son as two separate and distinct Beings as well as two separate and distinct Persons.

My apologies, Simonline. I must've skimmed through, because I thought Hybrid was saying that the Father became the Son. But actually, he said that the Father became a father, because He beget a son.:D

Note(s):
1. Christian Theology: An Introduction by Alister E. McGrath, p. 321
 
Upvote 0

Simonline

The Inquisitor
Aug 8, 2002
5,159
184
North West England
Visit site
✟28,927.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
Looking at the meaning of “Trinity”



Imagine you arrive at the scene of an accident and find a smashed car at the bottom of the cliff where you are standing. The car is green, and with very large wheels and tyres – the sort you’d only find on customised cars. At the cliff edge you see the green paint on many of the rocks, and the large distinctive tyre tracks leading over the edge of the cliff. The soil was disturbed, and rocks had fallen away. Directly below were the remains of the vehicle. Logically speaking the car had slipped over the cliff. Although you were not present and do not necessarily understand how it had happened, all the evidence (secondary factors) points to one logical conclusion: the car went over the cliff.



In this chapter we look at the Trinity. The term “Trinity” is not found in Scripture but speaks of a truth found throughout the Bible – that there are three Persons co-existing in unity as one God. As with the illustration above, we shall look at secondary factors, which point us to a logical conclusion – that God is a plurality of Persons in perfect unity as One. To attempt to understand everything about God is not possible, He being the supreme Creator. Yet to avoid issues just because they seem difficult is just as foolish.



In Gen.1:1 we read of God in the plural, yet who creates in the singular – creating as one. Throughout the Old Testament “Elohim” occurs 2,312 times and the alternation of singulars and plurals of the Divine names effectively safeguards against interpreting “Elohim” as signifying a plurality of gods, and yet at the same time also safeguards against the denial of a plurality of persons within the Godhead.



Later in Deut.6:4 we read “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one” (“Shema Yisroel Adonai Elohenu Adonai Echad”). The word that is used for one in this passage is not “yachid” speaking of absolute one-ness but “echad” speaking of a composite one – like one football team and so forth.



In the New Testament we read of Jesus saying “I and the Father are one” (Jn.10:30), which led the Jews to want to kill Him, they recognising what He was saying – that He was God. In Greek the word “one” is neuter (hen), not masculine (heis), which indicates that Jesus and God were one and the same in essence and power.



Shortly after the birth of Christianity we find people speaking of the word “Person” and saying that in the one God there are three persona, equal yet unique, being together the One True God. This may seem impossible to us but as we look at the meaning of “Person” things get a little clearer.



If you or I were locked in a prison cell it is obvious that we would not be able to escape – after all we cannot walk through walls. Yet, even though we are trapped bodily our minds remain free. We could think of events that occurred in the past, create a future in our imagination or travel around the world, so to speak, in our thoughts and so on. The mental abilities within man are vast and wonderful – each of us has millions of thoughts, millions of stories and millions of experiences. All of these are within us and so the term “Person” was used to speak of the place where I reside, the place where all that is “me” is contained. Where “me” resides there is self consciousness, with the capability of free thought and action – this was termed full personality.



Personality cannot be measured in space or time, it can only be perceived in action, in relation with either the environment or other beings. Personality is clearly seen in the actions of the will, this being our capacity to make choices, commitments and decisions. Will is the outworking of who we are, our thoughts and beliefs. It is an expression of the choices made according to how we perceive others and “see” life.



In this day and age our whole being – mentally, physically and spiritually – is spoken of as being a Person. But this was not the original meaning of person. The original meaning of person did not contain the physical element., which confuses us today when we think of three persons yet one God. Three physical beings seen as persona are obviously not one God, yet when we realise that “person” does not contain the physical element, then things get a little clearer. God expressly prohibited man from making images of Him because the image then became “God” for us. In other words our thoughts made Him instead of letting Him speak for Himself. For example, one of the simple reasons that many in the Jewish nation rejected Jesus is because He did not fit the image they had made concerning the Messiah. Pictures of a three headed God, or three men as being God do not depict the Trinity since they fail to do justice to God’s revelation of Himself.



The Latin word “persona” was originally derived from a mask through which an actor spoke, the word person actually being two words: “per” meaning “through” and “sono” meaning “to sound”. The mask gave an indication as to where the actor behind the mask was and what he was like, and of the one he was meant to depict. For example a red mask could have been used to speak of an angry man and a black mask to speak of a murderer and death, and so forth. The mask was a “personification” of the unseen person within, so to speak. The word soon came to be applied to the character of the actor, rather than the mask, and eventually came to mean the inner being – the thinking, rational, self conscious being – the place where the sum total of a man’s thinking and being were to be found. Our physical frames are often thought of as being the “person” in the sense that a mask was originally described as “person” yet this fails to show how the idea developed, and apart from this you do not need to have a physical body to reveal personality. For example a phone call or family videotape can directly communicate personality – the body does not have to be physically present. Hence “person” speaks of that which does not belong to the realm of space or the region of the visible, as we have already said, instead speaking more of a spirituality in time. It is the true substance of being, in space and time, yet with a final destiny beyond what we now know.



As already stated, thinking of three persons yet one God is difficult for us since, when we look at a person, we see the whole person – body included, and seeing a material person causes us to arrive at 1+1+1=3 when thinking of Trinity. Yet looking at things another way helps us to see things in a different perspective, after all 1x1x1=1.



We would not use a fishing net to catch sunlight , and in looking at persona we should remember that we are not dealing with something that can be visibly seen in itself, or, for example, held with our hands. This is why illustrations such as ice, water and steam being used to reveal “three-as-oneness” convey but a very weak picture of the reality. A slightly better attempt, though still clumsy, would be to say that air is made up of oxygen, hydrogen and nitrogen.



God is Personal. He is a being whom we can encounter because He has chosen to reveal Himself to us in ways whereby we can understand who He is and what He is like. He is a perfect being and so much more than an object to be observed and so much more than our best and perfect thoughts.



We begin to realise that God is “out there somewhere” by looking at the design in the creation, yet we can only truly know Him because He has chosen to communicate with us, using the mediums of language and action to convey what He is like.



God is personal and for us: yet due to sin, we are far from Him. However God is a loving God who reaches out to us. Because of His grace mercy and compassion, we are able to encounter Him through His actions and words in such a way that we “see” and know the One who cannot otherwise be known. For instance, He presents us with images of Himself in the analogy of a human form. Just one example of this would be when God speaks of His “arm” reaching out to sustain man:



My righteousness draws near speedily, my salvation is on the way, and my arm will bring justice to the nations. The islands will look to me and wait in hope for my arm (Isa.51:5)



We often think that such phrases as “my arm” are given to show that God is like us, yet this is not so. Firstly Scripture informs us that God is Spirit (Jn.4:24), and secondly, God uses human terminology to reveal what He is like, and in doing so shows that He is very different from us. For example, unlike humanity who often takes up weapons against others in indiscriminate and irrational ways, God’s arm brings about His perfect justice. The one who has every right to destroy rebellious man “reaches forth His arm to help man” instead. God always accomplishes what He sets out to do. He is far superior to us in every way and comparison is not really possible. And yet He graciously uses anthropomorphic language so that we might see and understand who He is. God is a living being, much more than a function or conglomerate of worldly ideas reaching upwards. He is the Holy One who stoops low in love, compassion and mercy, reaching out to those who deserve nothing and in giving Himself, giving everything.



In today’s society we often see a person as a physical being who sees his fellow man as a potential competitor in life. Or he may see others as “stepping stones” – no more than tools to be used and abused as one marches relentlessly on to some form of worldly success. One of our problems is that we don’t look at much below the surface and therefore see “person” as little more than an isolated individual who is complete in him/herself. In the light of all this, our rationalistic thinking often sees the idea of three persons within the one God as totally impossible. Yet to be a true person speaks of having perfect outgoing relationships with those around us. God did not create us to compete with one another, compare ourselves with one another or use and abuse one another. We were created to inter-relate in deep and wonderful ways, whilst still retaining our individuality. The word “person” does not speak of that which is visible of itself or measurable but of that which is present nonetheless and is revealed in it’s relation to others.



The “person” of the eternal Son of God, for example, whilst having His own identity exists in inseparable union with the “persons” of the Father and the Holy Spirit.



Speaking of God we find three “persons” unique yet the same, giving out and receiving love, wrapped in absolute holiness. And so we begin to catch a glimpse of three in oneness. Let’s remind ourselves of this again: God in absolute perfection. He does not need to lean upon or rely upon anything to make Him who He is. He is the great “I AM” and within the persons of the Trinity we find the binding essence of love – not a fleeting feeling, but an active willing love, which gives out and receives. There is one God and that God is Triune: One God in three persons. None of them can possibly be “the whole God”, and none of them can be God except in union with the other two persons. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one, and only one God. None of them is God without the other two. Each of them, with the other two, is God.



Today we have people who are called schizophrenic because they display more than one personality. This has come about because of the fall away from God, along with unknown additional factors, and yet, in a strange way, this can help us as we look at “person”. Within the one God we have three persons, perfectly loving, perfectly communicating, distinct, yet also the same – a powerful dynamic relationship characterised in love and holiness. The Father is the giver of unoriginated divine love, a pure source; the thinking, active, giving love of a transcendent father. The Incarnate Son is the receiver and communicator of this love – the Word made flesh. He receives glory and power from the Father and empties Himself of it, whilst being continually filled, in giving out to others. He is the perfect mediator – pure mediation, a thinking active person, and not just an object which something passes through. The Spirit is life given and life returning to God. He is a thinking, active person, not a supply of power, but a giver of Himself pointing to the work of the Son and the love of the Father and Son.



Therefore in the one God we see, through perfect relationship and intimacy (which is not at the expense of unity), three persons – Father, Son and Holy Spirit, each characterised by their selflessness and yet so much more.



Therefore, go and make disciples of all nations baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. (Matt.28:19)



In the above verse the word “name” is singular. In using this word Jesus indicates that there is one God, but three distinct persons within the Godhead – the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.



Quoted from “Christ or Mohammed – The Bible or the Qur’an?” by F.S.Copleston. (Updated and expanded by Jem Trehern) Published by Christian Focus Publications (2001)
 
Upvote 0

2ducklow

angel duck
Jul 29, 2005
8,631
125
✟9,570.00
Faith
Marital Status
Married
simonline said:
But a Being does not have to consist of only one Person [this is your blind spot]. Just because all finite beings are strictly Unitarian [one being/one Person] it does not follow that the Infinite Being also has to be Unitarian


Unitarian is a loaded word I say God is one, there is only one God.
but yes it does. we humans only have finite logic to figure things out with that is all we have been given by god to understand his word with. the only other option is finite illogic, which trinitarians use and call infinite logic of god. god makes finite logical sense elsewhere in the bible on subjects not related to the identity of god, no trinitarian trys and use gods so called inifiinte logic, (which translates to mans finite illogic) to interpet scritpure not realted to the trinity. if you are going to be illogical about scirtpure related to trinity then you should be illogical in iterpreting all ascritpure as well.
 
Upvote 0
M

Monergism

Guest
2ducklow said:
[/font]

Unitarian is a loaded word I say God is one, there is only one God.
but yes it does. we humans only have finite logic to figure things out with that is all we have been given by god to understand his word with. the only other option is finite illogic, which trinitarians use and call infinite logic of god. god makes finite logical sense elsewhere in the bible on subjects not related to the identity of god, no trinitarian trys and use gods so called inifiinte logic, (which translates to mans finite illogic) to interpet scritpure not realted to the trinity. if you are going to be illogical about scirtpure related to trinity then you should be illogical in iterpreting all ascritpure as well.

If you're not a Trinitarian, then you're a Unitarian. And while man has finite logic, God is beyond our logic. Just because the Trinitarian tries to understand a triune God, does not make him illogical. What man knows of God, God has revealed to man. But what God does not reveal, it remains a mystery, and a mystery isn't illogical.

And Trinitarians aren't illogical about Scripture related to the Trinity, nor do they have to be illogical aside from the Trinity. What an insult of you to say that the Trinitarian is illogical, because he tries to understand God. What an insult to many of the Trinitarians in the early church history. But I guess we should also use illogical thoughts on trying to figure out God's omnipotence and omniscience, since we don't fully understand God.

By the way, I'm not going to follow your logic. That is to say, I am not bound by what you say, nor do I have to follow your premises.
 
Upvote 0
H

hybrid

Guest
2ducklow said:
then you have 3 gods and you have 3 gods that are one god which is a contradiction. I'll show you the pitfall to this question. if you say that a person of god is a being then you have polythiesm = monothiesm and you have a contradiction as a result. if you say a person of god is not a being then you can't call it a person of god because a person is a being, (man, God, and angels). that would mean every definition of trinity was false. every definition that says trinity is 3 persons of god would not be correct and therefore there would be no definition of trinity except, 'it is unexplainable" because there would be no word for what you call a person. you would have to say god is 3 unknowns in one being, which would be no meaning.
So the pitfall is usually gotten around by triniatarians by never saying if a person of god is a being or not. usually the trinitarian response is to give some vague obscure answere without ever saying if a person of god is or is not a being. you just have to guess what it is from their confused answer. if the trinitarian response is descipherable it usually means both. they usually say a person of god is and is not a being. except it's so obscure no one can see it without much analysis. which most people don't bother to do.
Even the statement "a person of god is not a being" is a contradiciton because a person is a certain type of being, a personal being, a dog is another type of being a nonpersonal being. So actually the statement is " a personal being is not a being" = "a person is not a being". so obviously contradcitory.

Is the person of god a being?

Let me expound your question correctly for the benefit of the lurkers.

Is the person of God a being? I said yes.

Say…Jehovah is God.

The person of god is Jehovah and Jehovah is a being.

So the real relevant question is why Jehovah was called God.

The answer is of course clear, simple and obvious.

We call a person god because He possessed attributes like being eternal, almighty etc.

So in scriptures we found the son to posses these attributes we normally attributed to god. That is because by virtue of his son ship he is like the father in all aspect (same nature, same essence, same substance) except for being a father. But the bible teaches that the Father is the true God. So the Nicene Creed , the son, whom was found to possess godly attributes, was called true god from true god. True light from true light because the word god is reserve for the father for the simple reason that Christianity is monotheism.

I say that it is also correct to say that Jesus is God without doing violence to monotheism as long as it recognized that the sourness of his deity is from the father. So that the source of unity and equality of the Father, the son and the spirit are derived from the father

Your line of questioning is not new. The tactic is to show that trinity worships 3 gods, in the case of our discussion, to portray that the father and the son are two different gods and make it appear that trinity is pagan.

This was the aged long attempt to separate the Father from the son.

Frankly, I would rather be accused of being polytheist than to separate the father from the son to satisfy my logic. for how can you separate the speker from the word or the radiance from the light?

For to separate the two will contradict the repeated and emphatic declaration of Jesus that the Father and the Son are one.

Jesus said, “The Father is in me and I am in the Father.”

If x is in y and y is in x, in what sense they are separate?

So I think that what the trinity doctrine teaches is nothing more than what was only found written in the bible. The doctrine only collates all the data from scriptures and arrange it in to one orderly fashion we call confession of faith.
 
Upvote 0
H

hybrid

Guest
Monergism said:
[/font]
This is a Trinitarian heresy known as Sabellianism, after Sabellius, a Trinitarian heretic. It is also known as Modalism, since it says that God is a different person in a time of history. That is to say, God has modes.


I don't know what you're teaching.

I don't believe in that god is exist in three successive mode. i believe that they exist simulteounsly, the father and son.

my explanation may not be theologically complete, but i do'n think it suggest thatthe father ans son existed in succesive modes.
 
Upvote 0
H

hybrid

Guest
Simonline said:
[/font]



What 'Hybrid' is teaching here is nearly correct (all but the last sentence). The Father is not the 'God' of the Son since they are one and the same Being [Trinity]. I think what Hybrid is trying to say is that the Father is the God of the human Messiah which is theologically correct since the Messiah is a finite human creature (as well as the Infinite Divine Creator) and as a finite human creature, he always prayed to his Father in heaven.

One has to remember that the Messiah's being has dimensions which the pre-Incarnate Trinitarian God does not have (i.e. the finite [human] nature of a creature) and these have to be factored into the equation at the correct points. Therefore the Father is the God of the finite human creature who is the Messiah (Jn.14:28) but not of the eternally begotten Son/Word of God - the Second Person of the Trinity (Jn.1:1; 10:30) who is also the Messiah (welcome to the profound mystery that is the hypostatic union).

Simonline.

thanks simon, but i think that the subordination of the son goes way back to eternity.
 
Upvote 0
H

hybrid

Guest
Monergism said:
[/font]

I don't know what you're teaching.

i am saying that the subordination of the son goes all the way to eternity, not during only the pre-incanation. i think that this the traditional orthodox view.

the son is eternally begotten by the father. it means that the nature of the father was in the son. therefore if the father is eternal the son also is eternal. so the begotten does not refer to beginning but to nature, it means that the son is also eternal. it means that there was never a time that the father existed without the son.

but the source of the son eternity id from the father.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.