One or Three Gods?

[Bro_Sam]

Consider carefully what I've already said, and tell me what you expect my answer to be based on that. I'll tell you if you guessed correctly.

No thanks. I'm a grown up. When I ask somebody a question, I expect them to be a grown up and answer it. I stopped playing these silly games when I was ten.

 

[drich0150]

What is the difference between God being a title rather than name? To say that God is just a title given to three persons seems to say that the 'three-necessary' of the Trinity is more real than the 'one-necessary' of it. Is it different from there being three people with the title 'king' in a rooms and saying 'there are three people all with the essence of being king'? It sounds alot more like there being three Gods rather than one.

Your getting close. in that there are three distinct personalities that make up the one God. In the Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit. Just because you can not currently reconcile all the aspects of scripture doesn't mean you can dismiss them. If you current understanding does not incorporate what scripture indicates, then you have to reconsider or redefine what it is you think you know.

But it is possible that the world could have been 2-D and circles and squares could still exist.

Have you ever held a square or circle? These are not tangible objects, and the world was not built in 2-D. as it is, we are in 3-D and everything in this world attests to the triune nature of God. in that we have 3 very distinct aspects of every tangible object in our world Just like we have with God.
As i said, every object in this plain of existence attests to how 3 distinct properties can all be contained in one object.

It depends how you define God. What is needed for God to be God. I do see how Jesus could be considered God, but I thought it was worth asking the question of why.

I believe we have defined God or at least i have scripturally. If you do not accept a scriptural definition then perhaps this is the problem you are having, with the concept of God in human form, and the triune nature of the Father, Son and Spirit.

In other words if you will not yield to the authority found in scripture then we will have little to discuss.

The trinity and incarnation arn't found in the Bible either but you could say they are implied. Are you against using words to talk about God? Im unsure what you mean.

The concepts of the trinity, and incarnation are specifically references throughout scripture. the words we coined to describe these aspects of God were simply not coined at the time the scriptures were penned. Just like your use of the Omni aspects of God.

Understand these words or words are simply short cuts to greater concepts. As such by their nature are finite and can not always encompass the true meaning of what they are trying to describe. your specific use of the Omni aspects of God does not include any margin of error. Meaning you are holding God to a definition of a word that He obviously exceeds, and then what to know why there is a discrepancy. rather than looking at your understanding of the words used. you are looking to find a discrepancy in God. It is almost as if you are not willing to consider an error in your own understanding so you are questioning God.

I suppose you wouldn't consider the water God when Jesus calmed the storm though, even though God had control over it at the time?

God had control OVER the water. God was not in the water... Remember the definition i gave you was that What makes God God is that He has control over His creation. How is being controlled, make the controlled object God in your estimation?

 

[chilehed]

No thanks. I'm a grown up. When I ask somebody a question, I expect them to be a grown up and answer it. I stopped playing these silly games when I was ten.

A grown up knows how to arrive at a conclusion based on information he already has. I've certainly provided enough information for you to do that, and it's not a silly game. I've found that the response to such questions can help me formulate an effective answer as the conversation continues.

 

[Ih8s8n]

darknova: I posted a rather long response in regards to the Trinity on another thread about 5 months ago. Here is a link to that response:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7482914/#post55237726

Hopefully, what I posted will help to answer some of your questions.

Take care.

 

[Bro_Sam]

A grown up knows how to arrive at a conclusion based on information he already has.

Actually, a grown up knows that it's both foolish and disrespectful to assume that he knows someone's opinion without asking them.

I've found that the response to such questions can help me formulate an effective answer as the conversation continues.

It wasn't a trick question. There are only two possible answers: "yes" or "no".

What is it about Catholics and Mormons that neither will ever answer a question?

 

[darknova]

I don't think that formulating it as different aspects works, because that's essentially the same as modalism. The Church has gone to a lot of effort to make it clear that there are three distinct persons in the one godhead. But don't think for a minute that I (or anyone else) can really wrap his head around this, because remember that God's nature is so other than ours that we could much more easily wrap our heads around the idea of seven dimensions of space and point our fingers in the up direction of dimension six. Just because we can't really get it doesn't mean that it ain't so... that's why it's called a mystery.

I did have a look at modalism recently. I'm still unsure if it denies Jesus being God, but the idea of one God with three modes or aspects or expression seems to make alot more sense then there literally being three people who existed for all eternity. Reminds me of Hinduism for some reason.

The Bible doesn't seem to be clear if the Holy Spirit is God or how exactly the Trinity works, so what makes the early churches understanding so obviously correct? Were they infallible as well as the Bible?

Catholic theology has a concept called "invincible ignorance", what it means is that we're not to reject the teachings of God but there can be circumstances under which we are not required to make a motion to positively accept them. For example, if you never heard of them. Or if the only person to teach them to you raped all of your women and children and burned down your viliage, that would place serious impediments in your ability to accept the truth and so your culpability would be reduced.

But as might be expected, invincible ignorance doesn't apply if you're ignorant out of obstinance. It's a very subjective thing, which is why we're to leave utimate judgement up to God: He's the only one who can judge the subjective state of our souls. Heck, I've completely proven to myself that I'm often not a competant judge of my own internal state, much less that of anyone else.

I hope you don't mind if I ask the same question as Bro_Sam and guess that if you reject Catholic teaching because you don't think it makes sense, but not because of stubbornness then this might count as some kind of invincible ignorance?

 

[darknova]

Your getting close. in that there are three distinct personalities that make up the one God. In the Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit. Just because you can not currently reconcile all the aspects of scripture doesn't mean you can dismiss them. If you current understanding does not incorporate what scripture indicates, then you have to reconsider or redefine what it is you think you know.

Even though the Bible isn't clear about how they Trinity works?

If you say three different personalities, what does that actually mean? Because don't they all act as one, so what difference would there be if there was 1 or 3?

Have you ever held a square or circle? These are not tangible objects, and the world was not built in 2-D. as it is, we are in 3-D and everything in this world attests to the triune nature of God. in that we have 3 very distinct aspects of every tangible object in our world Just like we have with God.
As i said, every object in this plain of existence attests to how 3 distinct properties can all be contained in one object.

I havn't held a circle because we live in a 3-D world

So you are saying that 3 dimensions is symbolic of God in a way? I guess if you call time a dimension that messes that up. But I know time is different from the other 3.

In other words if you will not yield to the authority found in scripture then we will have little to discuss.

Many atheists wouldn't yield, so would you not evangelise?

Understand these words or words are simply short cuts to greater concepts. As such by their nature are finite and can not always encompass the true meaning of what they are trying to describe. your specific use of the Omni aspects of God does not include any margin of error. Meaning you are holding God to a definition of a word that He obviously exceeds, and then what to know why there is a discrepancy. rather than looking at your understanding of the words used. you are looking to find a discrepancy in God. It is almost as if you are not willing to consider an error in your own understanding so you are questioning God.

I don't think I tryed to use the definitions of God against Him.

God had control OVER the water. God was not in the water... Remember the definition i gave you was that What makes God God is that He has control over His creation. How is being controlled, make the controlled object God in your estimation?

I just said that because I thought you said Jesus was God because God had control over the human Jesus?

 

[chilehed]

I did have a look at modalism recently. I'm still unsure if it denies Jesus being God, but the idea of one God with three modes or aspects or expression seems to make alot more sense then there literally being three people who existed for all eternity. Reminds me of Hinduism for some reason.

The Bible doesn't seem to be clear if the Holy Spirit is God or how exactly the Trinity works, so what makes the early churches understanding so obviously correct? Were they infallible as well as the Bible?

The Catholic position is that Jesus established a teaching authority as part of His Church, and promised that it would never teach false doctrine. It's a position that I found is well supported by Sacred Scripture, by reason, and by the historical evidence. We can discuss that if you wish, here's a thread I started on the subject: http://www.christianforums.com/t2381861/

I'd make a distinction between inerrant (containing no errors) and infallible (not making false judgements. Sacred Scripture is inerrant, but since it can make no judgements it can't properly be called infallible. But sometimes I quibble points that are minor in the context of the conversation.

I hope you don't mind if I ask the same question as Bro_Sam and guess that if you reject Catholic teaching because you don't think it makes sense, but not because of stubbornness then this might count as some kind of invincible ignorance?

Don't mind at all. You are correct, this could be a case of invincible ignorance. The Catechism of the Catholic Church specifically says that

...one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.​

USCCB - Catechism of the Catholic Church

 

[Harry3142]

darknova-

The Holy Spirit is a person, not an object. The words actually translate as 'that Spirit which is apart from all others'. But being a spirit, he can manifest himself as both the Father and the Son, enabling a specie of beings, namely us, to comprehend better what he's teaching us.

And where have we seen this spirit in action?

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. (Genesis 1:1,2,NIV)

"How will this be," Mary asked the angel, "Since I am a virgin?"

The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God." (The Gospel of St. Luke 1:34,35,NIV)

 

[drich0150]

Even though the Bible isn't clear about how they Trinity works?

Yes

If you say three different personalities, what does that actually mean? Because don't they all act as one, so what difference would there be if there was 1 or 3?

The difference being scriptural doctrine. The Bible states there is only one God, but this God also has three parts. It is not for you to philosophy explain or understand all aspects of God. It is there for you to simply accept. truthfully you have a finite mind (a shot glass) God is infinite Oceans and Oceans of being. How can one truly accept and understand all aspects of God if he is only privy to a shot glass worth of information at a time?

Would you be able to explore the depths of the wolds oceans and understand all the mysteries the great depths contain by examining a shot glass worth of information?

Some of us are given more than others, but no matter how much we are given none of us would know more than that shot glass when compared to the infinite nature of God. so at some point you will have to simply accept something you do not comprehend.

I haven't held a circle because we live in a 3-D world

So you are saying that 3 dimensions is symbolic of God in a way? I guess if you call time a dimension that messes that up. But I know time is different from the other 3.

good because I really didn't want to explain time being a philosophical measure rather than a physical one and try and tie all of that back to God again. so long as you get that 3 things or 3 different aspects of something can infact make up only one object is the seed you need for greater understanding.

Many atheists wouldn't yield, so would you not evangelize?

only so far as my pride will hold out. Because at that point the discussion is moot. We must have a common footing in order to proceed. If we do not then all of this is basically a pointless philosophical exercise.

I don't think I tryed to use the definitions of God against Him.

You questioned the omni aspects of God, and rather addressing your understanding of these definitions you questioned God, because you have found a flaw in what you have used to measure Him. When in fact you should view God as the absolute and bend your words to fit Him rather than the other way around.

I just said that because I thought you said Jesus was God because God had control over the human Jesus?

We are more than the body we live in. The bodies we have been given are simply shells. We are soul. we are spirit. The son of God when He poured Himself into a body, He did not cease being the son of God. He is not soul He is not spirit. Therefore He is not apart of creation. Therefore the control the Father has over the Son is not the control God exhibits over creation. Christ apart from Creation yields to the Father on His own accord. Christ body does not make Him apart of Creation, anymore than our bodies makes apart of creation. According to scripture We were created before our bodies were conceived. (we, meaning soul and spirit.) Scripture tells us Christ was, before creation began.

So no to your question/statement.

 

[razeontherock]

I there literally being three people who existed for all eternity.

Glad this doesn't make sense to you because this is not what Trinity represents!

The Bible doesn't seem to be clear if the Holy Spirit is God or how exactly the Trinity works, so what makes the early churches understanding so obviously correct?

The answer to this question is, of course, the Person of Jesus Himself. And yes the Holy Spirit is G-d. One way it is verbalized is by saying it is His Power working in our world.

 

[razeontherock]

Even though the Bible isn't clear about how they Trinity works?

If you say three different personalities, what does that actually mean? Because don't they all act as one, so what difference would there be if there was 1 or 3?

NOW you're getting it! Seriously. It's not all that important, neither is it the end of anything, nor does it replace other ways G-d has revealed Himself to us. It's one more attempt He's made to let us know Him better.

What really makes it significant is it makes it harder to distort who Jesus is, clouding His preeminence.

So you are saying that 3 dimensions is symbolic of God in a way? I guess if you call time a dimension that messes that up. But I know time is different from the other 3.

First, G-d is outside of time so rather than messing this up it actually further defines. Next, one rope being made out of 3 separate chords adds to this revelation, as does our own make up of spirit, soul and body, as does matter existing in solid, liquid and gas. I suspect we would find no end of this Trinity concept showing up throughout our Universe ...

 

[Blue Man]

The whole of Scripture. You see, when you're speaking with a Christian, Scripture is not some old dusty book; it's a living force.



This rational / logical element is how I came to the Lord. I was actually looking to excuse myself for not living up to what I knew is what he expected of me, hoping to find some loophole in the Bible, somewhere. Instead I found He is perfect, and fell in Love with Him. No, I'm not gay

But this one point really zeros in on the OP! We don't posit that the man Jesus was present at creation. He was born as a baby, long afterwards. What we wind up with is what has come to be termed as "the pre-incarnate Christ." I think it's important to ignore all the man-made stuff and seek G-d in earnest, for yourself. He'll show you His Truth! After that, you realize people's debates are silly and inconsequential by comparison. And that becomes the "broom" with which we can sweep away our own doubts, moment by moment.

Peace

This is a good rationalization of the combined phrases assuming the bible is true. It is something that wouldn't have been needed had the writer clearly explained the trilogy or, in the event the trilogy isn't a proper rationalization, it is an inconsistency of the text. Unless you have other text which I have not read, I don't believe the bible actually explains the trilogy word for word, and therefore it could obviously still be suspect to possibly being an inconsistency. The fact that such a rationalization had to be made isn't a strength in the debate about a book's creditability.

 

[razeontherock]

isn't a strength in the debate about a book's creditability.

The credibility does not lie in the book!

trilogy ... trilogy

Did you mean "Trinity?" Everything we know about Trinity is explained in the Bible. If the Lord hasn't enlightened that to you personally via it's pages, statements made by the Church may help. Or they may not. The way it works for me is encountering the statements by others raises questions, and I grow via seeking the Lord. YMMV.

What hipped me to Trinity in the first place was this:

Isaiah 33:22 For the LORD [is] our judge, the LORD [is] our lawgiver, the LORD [is] our king; he will save us.

 

[Blue Man]

The credibility does not lie in the book!



Did you mean "Trinity?" Everything we know about Trinity is explained in the Bible. If the Lord hasn't enlightened that to you personally via it's pages, statements made by the Church may help. Or they may not. The way it works for me is encountering the statements by others raises questions, and I grow via seeking the Lord. YMMV.

What hipped me to Trinity in the first place was this:

Isaiah 33:22 For the LORD [is] our judge, the LORD [is] our lawgiver, the LORD [is] our king; he will save us.

Yes, trinity. That's pretty funny because a trilogy is the opposite of a trinity.

And I'm sorry, but that's not a defense. Something that important wouldn't escape the bible, it's 2000 pages long. What's an additional paragraph?