I notice over the course of this thread that we seem to be inundated with fallacy:
Anyone who claims to fully understand Trinity shows how little they know of the subject .
I can assure you, in nine years of much discussing concerning g this subject I found not one person, including seasoned ministers who could answer every question/ bible verse placed before them on the subject.
I'm going to once again repeat to you. Trinitarians ministers, one who had been a minister for fifty years could not answer every scripture placed before them concerning trinity, neither can i, you or anyone else on these websites.
I rather doubt you'll be able to comprehend the Trinity no matter how much you study or discuss it. It doesn't fit with our "logical" brains how there can be three co-equal Beings that have separate functions but are really the same.
But comprehending the Holy Trinity is a task that is, at present, beyond the capacity of humanity.
It's a wonderful mystery beyond our comprehension.
No one can understand the Trinity.
The above quotes demonstrate a deductive fallacy. It's the same trap that agnostics fall into, believing that not only do I not know the answer, but no one else can possibly know, either. Not only is the claim fallacious, but it's false. I might believe that an arena of theologians might not know the answer, but that does not mean that an answer does not exist.
The logic of numbers is a riddle best left to mathematicians and not theologians! Answer me, in what situation are the following statements true (for all n greater than zero but less than infinity):
3x = 1x
x + n = x
n/x = 0
(x + n)/x = 1
The above can only be true if x equals infinity. If God is infinite in nature, then the following is true:
3x = 1x: Three of God means exactly the same as one of God. One person is not merely a subset of the whole. The Holy Spirit plus the Son do not, together, make less than 100% of God, even though all three also make 100%, and only one of them also makes 100%.
x + n = x: Infinity, plus or minus anything short of infinity still equals infinity. If Jesus made himself less than the Father, then Jesus and the father are still equal.
n/x = 0: Any finite number divided by infinity equals nothing. Any sinner, whether a great sinner or a near-saint falls equally short of the glory of God.
(x + n)/x = 1: Any finite number added to infinity can be divided by infinity and equal one. A fallen man, by himself, will always fall short of the glory of God, but that same man united with Christ has 100% wholly attained the glory of God. His own contribution adds nothing, but Christ is everything.
Don't tell me my ideas are not biblical, till you can show me from scripture why not please...
No offence intended, but this fallacious argument puts the onus on the negative assertion. I can always make a statement that you cannot disprove. That doesn't make me right. I can always make an assertion that you can not find scripture to refute, but that does not make it theologically sound. The burden of proof must always be on the positive assertion.
This is how I understand the Godhead. God the Father out of himself brought forth Jesus and the Holy Spirit.
God is necessarily self-existent. In this world, everything has a cause. Hence, if we trace backward the chain of cause and effect we must necessarily end up with an effect without a cause. We can say that God is the Creator and was not created, because he is self-existent, meaning that he has no cause. Therefore, we must also accept that he has no beginning. The moment we begin to ascribe a beginning or a cause to God, he becomes less than infinite and something not self-existent. That is, he ceases to be God. The above statement, perhaps unwittingly, denies the deity of Christ and the Holy Spirit.
Folks,
The doctrine of the Trinity was born during the Council of Nicaea, hundreds of years after the passing of Jesus Christ. Whatever was decided during the Council of Nicaea was man-made and not inspired by God.
That's an unsubstantiated claim. The assumption appears to be that nothing can be inspired by God after some undetermined time after the life of Christ on Earth. The statement makes no effort to explain what defines the time frame, why it is the time frame, why anything outside of the time frame cannot be inspired, nor why anything inside the time frame could be inspired. In fact, the above claim, itself, appears to rely upon its own authority, which by its own reasoning insists that the claim, itself, is also not inspired and must therefore be rejected.
