Trinity is wrong.

[ContraMundum]

I just thought of another problem with the trinity

I bet it's been thought of already....let's see....

jesus's will was slightly different then the will of the father cause he was subject to the temptation of the flesh...near his death he prayed for the cup to be removed(which was not wrong in itself but it showed a slight difference in will) but when you really think about it, this is because the father is not subject to temptation.

Nah..that's not original either. These things were discussed at length during the monothelite controversy.

the resurrected jesus is also not subject to temptation and is no longer fully man fully god...hes just fully god...his flesh is no longer altering his will from that of the father through temptation...jesus did not even consider himself good as a man

Neither of these two points are arguments against the Trinity- they are Christological points really. In both cases Jesus could still be understood as God. It is how that relationship works that you are questioning.

Anyway, if you are interested in the orthodox Christian perspective, do some Googling on Christology, The Council of Chalcedon and the "Communicatio idiomatum".

 

[ContraMundum]

doesn't the trinity teach that jesus is fully god and fully man?

but this is not the case since his resurrection

He was still man- he could be touched (remember Thomas?), yet He could walk through walls.

Understanding the Trinity completely is impossible. It's like trying to cram 200 Gbyte of data into a 2 Gig HDD. It's impossible. (Think also about this idea when trying to understand the incarnation.)

 

[Bananna]

I suppose you believe what you say above is a contradiction. Well I see no contradiction in the scriptures you refer to. How are 7 spirits around the throne a contradiction of Jesus at the right hand of God and god on the throne? Jesus is right next to god on the throne, and further out are 7 spirits around the thone. No contradiction apparent or real.
If one has a belief that contradicts another belief or interpretation of scripture, then one of those beliefs is incorrect. You seem to be saying that contradictions in interpretations of scripture are both true and desireable. I don't agree with that.

I can see why you misunderstood me. I will give validity to any valid point, that does not mean I accept that point as true.

My personal belief is that Paradox should be explained in a consistant manner that does not leave contradiction.

bananna

 

[&Abel]

He was still man- he could be touched (remember Thomas?), yet He could walk through walls.

Understanding the Trinity completely is impossible. It's like trying to cram 200 Gbyte of data into a 2 Gig HDD. It's impossible. (Think also about this idea when trying to understand the incarnation.)

thats a cop out

he had a body but he was freed from the temptation of the flesh...to be a man is to be stained with sin and tempted

he now has a heavenly body

we are told we will be like angels in heaven...we won't be men when we're resurrected

 

[Evergreen48]

Understanding the Trinity completely is impossible. It's like trying to cram 200 Gbyte of data into a 2 Gig HDD. It's impossible. (Think also about this idea when trying to understand the incarnation.)

It is foolish to accept as truth anything that cannot be understood completely. As for myself, I'll just go with what the scripture says of Jesus - that He was the Son of God, born of a woman. His every thought, word and deed was a reflection of God. Therefore, He and His Father were one. That I can understand completely, and accept without any reservation.

 

[2ducklow]

I can't help it if you find it confusing. Judging by your post, you really are confused about it. That's good. According to my post- I did the right thing.

I find the Trinity logical, honest and filled with lovely paradox. I'm sorry all you see is confusion.

ANd I have to go by what my brain tells me which is that your explanation of trinity, which is that God =essence= divine attributes = person= being of power = being of divine essence = person = something that exists which is a being, is nonsensical to the max. AND I believe that doesn't make sense to anyone, even you. It can't get anymore nonsensical that God =essence= divine attributes = person= being of power = being of divine essence = person = something that exists which is a being.

Understanding the Trinity completely is impossible.

And understanding your explanation that God = essence = divine attributes = person = being of power = being of divine essence = person = something that exists which is a being, is also impossible to understand. So why do you pretend like you understand it and say trinity is conpletely logical and non confusin when later on you say it can't be understood.? you can't have your cake and eat it too. Either it can't be understood, or it can. you say both.

God =essence= divine attributes = person= being of power = being of divine essence = person = something that exists which is a being. How can anyone believe these made up completely fabricated definitions of words that only you have? A person of God isn't a person you just call him a person what he really is is a being of power. so why don't you call a person of god what he really is according to you and not what you admit he isn't ? "being of power and dvine essence the father, being of power and essence he son, being of power and essence the holy spirit? It actually condemns trinity as being invalid because your definitiaon admits that there are 3 beings, thus making trinity polythiestic.

 

[2ducklow]

I can see why you misunderstood me. I will give validity to any valid point, that does not mean I accept that point as true.

My personal belief is that Paradox should be explained in a consistant manner that does not leave contradiction.

bananna

if a paradox can be explained then it no longer is a paradox. paradoxes are apparanet contradictions, not real contradictions. and once the apparant contradiction is explained it no longer is a contradiction. If someone explains a paradox by stating two contradictory statements in explanation of it, he hasn't explained the paradox, he has only defined the paradox. It remains a mystery to him.
example , scripture says 'his name shall be called the mighty god". Now most christians take this verse to mean that Jesus is God, but other scripture clearly states that JEsus is a man and that God is not a man. So a paradox, how can jesus be both man and god when scripture also says god is not a man? it is an apparent contradiction, a paradox. but the paradox is cleared up when one correctly interprets the verse from Isaiah to mean that Jesus has the name of his father who is the mighty god. "HIS NAME shall be called the mighty god" not "he is the mighty god." so usuallly paradoxes exist only in the minds of people refusing to read scripture for what it says instead of reading it to say what they want it to say. Paradoxes exist only in them inds of humans not in reality.

 

[2ducklow]

He was still man- he could be touched (remember Thomas?), yet He could walk through walls.

Understanding the Trinity completely is impossible. It's like trying to cram 200 Gbyte of data into a 2 Gig HDD. It's impossible. (Think also about this idea when trying to understand the incarnation.)

well then apply that same logic to myt doctrine that God the father is the one and only true god and Jesus is his son not god, and the holy spirit is the spirit of the one true god. just say you can understand it and accept it by faith. you accept your explanation by faith, so accept mine. No need to not understand it just accept what people say, it's what you want us non trinitarians to do, just accept your doctrine without understanding it, cause it can't be understood. well what's good for the goose is good for the gander. just accept my doctrine by faith and don't worry that it makes sense, just accept it by faith. don't worry about how a doctrine that makes sense could possibly be true, just accept it by faith.

 

[&Abel]

some evidence that jesus and god are not exactly the same:

Hebrews 2

Give Heed

1For this reason we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, so that (A)we do not drift away from it. 2For if the word (B)spoken through (C)angels proved unalterable, and (D)every transgression and disobedience received a just (E)penalty,
3(F)how will we escape if we neglect so great a (G)salvation? After it was at the first (H)spoken through the Lord, it was (I)confirmed to us by those who heard,
4God also testifying with them, both by (J)signs and wonders and by (K)various miracles and by (L)gifts of the Holy Spirit (M)according to His own will.
Earth Subject to Man

5For He did not subject to angels (N)the world to come, concerning which we are speaking. 6But one has testified (O)somewhere, saying,
"(P)WHAT IS MAN, THAT YOU REMEMBER HIM?
OR THE SON OF MAN, THAT YOU ARE CONCERNED ABOUT HIM?
7"(Q)YOU HAVE MADE HIM FOR A LITTLE WHILE LOWER THAN THE ANGELS;
YOU HAVE CROWNED HIM WITH GLORY AND HONOR,
[a]AND HAVE APPOINTED HIM OVER THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS;
8(R)YOU HAVE PUT ALL THINGS IN SUBJECTION UNDER HIS FEET "
For in subjecting all things to him, He left nothing that is not subject to him But now (S)we do not yet see all things subjected to him.
Jesus Briefly Humbled

9But we do see Him who was (T)made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, (U)because of the suffering of death (V)crowned with glory and honor, so that (W)by the grace of God He might (X)taste death (Y)for everyone. 10For (Z)it was fitting for Him, (AA)for whom are all things, and through whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to (AB)perfect the (AC)author of their salvation through sufferings.
11For both He who (AD)sanctifies and those who (AE)are sanctified are all (AF)from one Father; for which reason He is not ashamed to call them (AG)brethren,
12saying,
"(AH)I WILL PROCLAIM YOUR NAME TO MY BRETHREN,
IN THE MIDST OF THE CONGREGATION I WILL SING YOUR PRAISE."
13And again,
"(AI)I WILL PUT MY TRUST IN HIM "
And again,
"(AJ)BEHOLD, I AND THE CHILDREN WHOM GOD HAS GIVEN ME."
14Therefore, since the children share in (AK)flesh and blood, (AL)He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that (AM)through death He might render powerless (AN)him who had the power of death, that is, the devil,
15and might free those who through (AO)fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives.
16For assuredly He does not give help to angels, but He gives help to the descendant of Abraham.
17Therefore, He had (AP)to be made like His brethren in all things, so that He might (AQ)become a merciful and faithful (AR)high priest in (AS)things pertaining to God, to (AT)make propitiation for the sins of the people.
18For since He Himself was (AU)tempted in that which He has suffered, He is able to come to the aid of those who are tempted."


13Let no one say when he is tempted, "(AC)I am being tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone.

so what is this saying?...I believe its saying that while god was a man he was not equal to the father...while in the flesh before his work was complete he WAS different from the father and he remains different because he experienced, submitted and conquered death

18(X)A ruler questioned Him, saying, "Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" 19And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone.



jesus's will was also clearly somewhat different from the father in the flesh


the father was abiding in him doing his work and yet he was still a part of a sinful existence and therefore not equal to the father while in the flesh...and while they are one the bible still leads us to believe there is a difference between the 2


perhaps they will not be completely one until after this creation has ended



' THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD,"SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND,UNTIL I PUT YOUR ENEMIES BENEATH YOUR FEET"


Jesus said to him, " You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you will see THE SON OF MAN SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER, and COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN."

 

[ContraMundum]

thats a cop out

Yeah, thanks for that.

he had a body but he was freed from the temptation of the flesh...to be a man is to be stained with sin and tempted

..unless of course you are a sinless man.

we are told we will be like angels in heaven...we won't be men when we're resurrected

OK...whatever you say, but I think you're incorrect. Believe what you want.

 

[ContraMundum]

It is foolish to accept as truth anything that cannot be understood completely.

Lots of things are not understood completely. Like gravity. Is it foolish to believe in gravity because we cannot fully understand it?

 

[ContraMundum]

ANd I have to go by what my brain tells me which is that your explanation of trinity, which is that God =essence= divine attributes = person= being of power = being of divine essence = person = something that exists which is a being, is nonsensical to the max.

I think your rationalisation of my post is just bizzare. Please desist from ever reading my posts again. Put me on iggy, because I don't want you quoting me. Your interpretation of my thought is just too surreal and self-absorbed to be an accurate reflection of my words and I don't want people thinking I've gone schizo when they read your strange assesment of orthodoxy. Please, just argue with someone else. I can't get the time I spend reading your arguments back.

 

[Bananna]

if a paradox can be explained then it no longer is a paradox. paradoxes are apparanet contradictions, not real contradictions. and once the apparant contradiction is explained it no longer is a contradiction. If someone explains a paradox by stating two contradictory statements in explanation of it, he hasn't explained the paradox, he has only defined the paradox. It remains a mystery to him.
example , scripture says 'his name shall be called the mighty god". Now most christians take this verse to mean that Jesus is God, but other scripture clearly states that JEsus is a man and that God is not a man. So a paradox, how can jesus be both man and god when scripture also says god is not a man? it is an apparent contradiction, a paradox. but the paradox is cleared up when one correctly interprets the verse from Isaiah to mean that Jesus has the name of his father who is the mighty god. "HIS NAME shall be called the mighty god" not "he is the mighty god." so usuallly paradoxes exist only in the minds of people refusing to read scripture for what it says instead of reading it to say what they want it to say. Paradoxes exist only in them inds of humans not in reality.

My point was exactly that I believe all paradoxes can be explained. A valid point of understanding the Hebrew mind set is that they accept contraditions period, not just paradox. IE Chabad.org explains God as contradictions. God has never been seen Yet the elders see God eating and drinking... one of their examples of many.

So for a Jew who believes in a Triune God I see a valid point of understanding where he is coming from but I do not agree that God is contractions (can't figure out how to word that better, Please just try to understand what I'm saying and not be offended.)

JMO
bananna

 

[ContraMundum]

My point was exactly that I believe all paradoxes can be explained. A valid point of understanding the Hebrew mind set is that they accept contraditions period, not just paradox. IE Chabad.org explains God as contradictions. God has never been seen Yet the elders see God eating and drinking... one of their examples of many.

So for a Jew who believes in a Triune God I see a valid point of understanding where he is coming from but I do not agree that God is contractions (can't figure out how to word that better, Please just try to understand what I'm saying and not be offended.)

JMO
bananna

I knew you would get this better than others.

What might be worthy of note: there's true contradictions and then there's apparent contradictions. "the paper was completely white" vs "the paper was completely black" is a true contradiction (provided we are talking about the same piece of paper). "The paper was white" vs. "the paper was black" is an apparent contradiction- because the paper might be both, or mostly one colour or another, or even two different papers. In other words, there may be another explanation.

 

[Evergreen48]

Lots of things are not understood completely. Like gravity. Is it foolish to believe in gravity because we cannot fully understand it?

Believing in such a thing as gravity even though we do not understand it completely, is neither foolish nor wise. Because it does not affect us in the spiritual sense either way. Personally, I neither believe or disbelieve in gravity. Never really thought about it much.

 

[2ducklow]

I think your rationalisation of my post is just bizzare.

just my understanding of what you said. I found your post hard to follow. I merely attempted to make sense out of it. apparently you have no desire to corrrect any misunderstandings i have.

Please desist from ever reading my posts again. Put me on iggy, because I don't want you quoting me.

I like reading your posts. Trinity explanations are like jig saw puzzles to me with the pieces all over the place and some on top of the others. THey have to be this way in order to avoid the unavoidable fact that trinity is 3 beings that are one being. Really that is what eveyr trinity explanation attempts to hide. I just here show how your jig saw pieces all over the place with one piece on top of another so to speak all fit to that end. putting jig saw puzzles together is fun.

Your interpretation of my thought is just too surreal and self-absorbed to be an accurate reflection of my words and I don't want people thinking I've gone schizo when they read your strange assesment of orthodoxy. Please, just argue with someone else. I can't get the time I spend reading your arguments back.

I laid out my understanding of what you said sentence by sentence. You didn't bother to show how anything i said was wrong so i presumed my analysis was correct. That it was nonsensical didn't disprove to me that that couldn't be what you were syaing for I find all trinity explanations to be nonsensical and some nonsensical to the extreme.. Your arguments were hard for me to discipher, But I attempted to descipher them, and on this second go around I see more clearly what you were saying. and what you are saying boils down to 3 beings are one being, as an explanation of trinity.

Hiya Bananna.

Thanks for the vote of confidence but this thread seems like one that would take a lot of effort to be involved in any further. I'm not sure I should invest that kind of time here because I have a feeling it won't make a lot of difference in the end.

But, to answer your question, the term "person" is not to be understood in human terms (eg. a rational being existing by itself) but in the sense of a rational being of the One Divine essence.(ok my mistake, I misread it as if you were saying a person is a divine essence, so we got so far person = rational being 2dl) The term fails on a human level to properly define the concept for the obvious reason that it is beyond our reasoning. What it does mean is that the idea of three seperate energies or qualities is rejected in favor of one essence who have one and the same "power" if you like. I don't know if the Greek and Latin terms will be of use but it is important to grasp them to really get a handle on this. There is an old axiom about humans: As many men, so many essences. A different doctrine applies to God, three persons, one essence.

The idea of "essence" (ousia) is not to be understood in the generic or abstract sence of the word (as in Greek philosophy) but in the concrete sense of the word meaning as something that actually exists.( I said you said essence means something that exists, which is the def. Of a being.,, so we have person = rational being = , and god = essence= being, so that means that you are saying that a person is a being and God is also a being, which means that 3 beings are one being. BUt let me ask you this, if god is a being and a being is an essence, wouldn't that mean that a person is also an essence since a person is also a being? or is a person not an essence? Are saying that in your vocabulary essence is just a synonym for being?2dl) From this point we assess all the Divine attributes as something real, and one of those attributes being unique (one) and separate from all other things (holy). In this understanding of essence we come to know what is shared by all three persons of the Godhead. Yet, they are not persons in the human sense, but the very one and the very same God. How we establish the distinction in persons is based on how their actions are recorded in scripture.(I asked you to clarify this last point and said that there were two possibilities that I see as to what you meant. You haven’t clarified it or said how my understanding is incorrect. . I take it to mean that you are saying that essence means all the divine attributes or divine attributes for short. so we got here that essence = divine attributes. Ok so you are saying that person = rational being = and God = essence = divine attributes. I see a lttle clearer what you are saying, having gone over it a second time, but I see it as no explanation, basically your just saying a person of god is a being, and god is an essence and 3 beings make up one essen ce or beingwhich are divine attributes and a being. 3 beings make up one being which is a contradiction even according to James white who has a trinity explanation here in CF. .2dl)


Ultimately, it comes down to how we understand the basics of scripture teaching about God. It has been said that anyone approaching the whole context of scripture, seeing that Divine attributes are shared by three persons, must come to one of three conclusions- Unitarianism, Tritheism or Trinitarianism. Unitarianism (and its logical and historic derivatives) denies the three persons, and Tritheism (and its logical and historical derivatives like subordinationism) denies the one essence. Only Trinitarianism holds to all at once. It is taught (and this is important) that a Christian theologian would be in error if he or she taught the Trinity in such a way as to make it comprehensible to human reason, for to do so would be evidence of missing the mark on one point or another. Nevertheless, while it is beyond reason it is not unreasonable or self-contradictory. Knowing that God is only One in nature and "ousia" yet that He is seen in the Son and the Holy Spirit is something that must be affirmed regardless of human shortcomings in grasping it rationally. We cannot lose one point or reason away portions of scripture at the expense of another portion because we don't have the capacity to make head or tail of it. Rather, by faith we embrace all that scripture says even in points of intellectual tension, and allow God to teach us His truths by faith. One theologian put it best- "From this it is clear the term Trinity has not been coined to satisfy reason, but only to express the doctrine of scripture concerning the true God" (J. T. Mueller)

I get out of your explanation that trinity means 3 beings are one being, as I explained above. A contradiciton and therefore invalid.

 

[Bananna]

Duck that would be invalid to you. Not invalid to many other Christians.

On the other side of the issue is having to explain how God can be seen, when scripture says God cannot be seen.

How we can seek the face of the invisible God.

How we can be one with the invisible God

How God can be light, living water, eat, think,

How can the God of the universe be singular when He is one with all.

bananna

 

[2ducklow]

Duck that would be invalid to you. Not invalid to many other Christians.

3 beings are one being is invalid to everyone, even trinitarians. That is why they avoid explaining how trinity does not mean that. Think not? just ask any trinitarian if god the father is a being, is god the son a being, is god the holy spirit a being is god a being? they won't answer it yes or no, just some evasive answer to get around it because they would have to admit that either trinity is the contradiction of 3 beings are one being or they are going to have to admit that eithr the persons of g od do not exist or god does not exist by either denying that say god the father is a being, or denying that god is a being. so it condmens trinity as being false. Just look at james white's explanation of trinity here in CF. he admits that 3 beings are one being is a contradiction but says trinity is not a contradiction cause there is a difference between a being and a person. which is nonsense because a person is a being. it's like saying 3 women are one female is not a contradiction cause there is a difference between a woman and a female. No one would buy that arugment, everyone knows all women are females, and everyone knows all persons are beings. What contra attempted to do was show that the persons of g od are beings but god is not without saying that god is not a being. but he failed when he stated that god is an essence and an essence is something that exists, because something that exists is a being. He probably either didn't know that or failed to realize it. think not? then why didn't he just flat out state at the beginning that persons of god are beings and god is a being, or not a being? cause it is something to be avoided at all costs when explaining trinity. everyone that explains trinity avoids that problem altogether.

On the other side of the issue is having to explain how God can be seen, when scripture says God cannot be seen.

one sees god figuratively in seeing Jesus and one cannot literally see God for he is a spirit. different realm. there is no contradiction when one understands the word. if one does not undefstsand the word then it is full of contradictions such as this one you list.

How we can seek the face of the invisible God.

you can't. one sees it figuratively by seeing Jesus who manifests the god that is within him. Have you not seen Jesus in another saint? I have all the time.

How we can be one with the invisible God

the bible explains it very clearly, CHrist in us and we in christ and god in christ and christ in god. again no contradiction in the b ible.

How God can be light, living water, eat, think,

figures of speech. personifications.

How can the God of the universe be singular when He is one with all.

bananna

he is not one with all. if we are one with God and christ it is because we are in christ and christ is in us. Not everyone, christians included are one with christ and have christ in them. but that should be our goal to be one in christ, and have christ in all his fullness in us.

if one sees contradictions in the bible, then one is not seeing what the bible is really saying.

 

[&Abel]

I definitely agree with aspects of the trinity

 

[ContraMundum]

just my understanding of what you said. I found your post hard to follow. I merely attempted to make sense out of it. apparently you have no desire to corrrect any misunderstandings i have.

Sorry.

I like reading your posts.

I'm stunned, actually.

I get out of your explanation that trinity means 3 beings are one being, as I explained above. A contradiciton and therefore invalid.

To be honest, I didn't read your whole post. Anyway, it's three persons, one God. Not three beings, one being. If I gave you that idea it's my fault.