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.
can somebody please explain to me how Trinity and monotheism are consistent,
is it three or one? choose because three is not one.
"Hear O Israel the Lord our God the Lord is one"
Deuteronomy 6:4
I haven't encountered anything that's like God, no. But for you to keep saying 'one can't be three' makes no sense to me, especially when you admit that you've encountered something like that in other aspects of life. And if you are going to fall back on God being unknowable--which is a sensible way of thinking of this subject, I agree--you surely ought to be able to appreciate the Christian concept that what we know of God is thanks to the revelation he's given us about himself (the Bible). That revelation of course describes God as One god but in three.you're right I have, but I cannot imagine something like it being infinite eternal and indivisible.
Perhaps you've encountered something like that?
Thanks for saying that, but what I described does seem to have been done to us several times in this thread--paraphrasing what we've written, and paraphrasing it into something that makes what we said seem silly.What do you mean? My deepest apology for any of the kind.
God loves us, but He does not need love, He is not incomplete because of that and in fact He created the concept of love, so how can He be subject to a concept He Himself created?
even after three pages of this thread I don't understand the words "three persons one god" without saying that they are separate beings, if there are out there three thinking minds then one must be able to think and act independent of the others? if Jesus saves, that means the others would destroy
without him saving, isn't that polytheism?
even after three pages of this thread I don't understand the words "three persons one god" without saying that they are separate beings, if there are out there three thinking minds then one must be able to think and act independent of the others? if Jesus saves, that means the others would destroy
without him saving, isn't that polytheism?
God loves us, but He does not need love, He is not incomplete because of that and in fact He created the concept of love, so how can He be subject to a concept He Himself created?
even after three pages of this thread I don't understand the words "three persons one god" without saying that they are separate beings, if there are out there three thinking minds then one must be able to think and act independent of the others? if Jesus saves, that means the others would destroy
without him saving, isn't that polytheism?
I try to avoid using the word "person" and "persons" because it is generally confusing to many modern hearers.
The historical reason for saying that there are "three persons" is due to the translation of the Greek word hypostasis to the Latin word persona. So the Greek theologians spoke of "three hypostases" and in turn Latin theologians spoke of "three personae". This was met with some hostility from the Greek-speaking East because the Latin "persona" was often used to render the Greek prosopon, and often referred to the masks worn by actors in Greek theater. Which seemed to suggest that the Latins were saying that God wore "three masks" or had "three faces". Which, of course, isn't what they were saying, but it required a lot of explanatory power to affirm that when the Latin West said "persona" they meant the same thing that the Greek East did when they said "hypostasis".
A perhaps more literal translation of hypostasis into Latin would have been subsistentia, which in English is subsistence. It refers to an underlying reality of a thing. And it effectively is talking about the Father's "Father-ness", the Son's "Son-ness", and the Holy Spirit's "Holy Spirit-ness".
We are not talking about "persons" as fully separate, individual beings as is typical of the word; nor are we suggesting that God wears different "masks". We are saying that there is a fundamental Three-ness that is somewhat fundamentally mysterious to us; that there really is this "Father", and there really is this "Son", and there really is this "Holy Spirit", and that "they" are fundamentally the same "what", the same Being, and yet there is an actual distinction, an actual inter-relatedness between the Three. The Father loves the Son, and the Son loves the Father, and this is not a selfish love, but a outwardly moving love from One to Another.
This inter-relatedness means both absolute Oneness and actual Threeness; without conflict or contradiction. God is not "three in one", instead we speak of the Three-and-One. When speaking about numerical being, we can only speak of Oneness, there is only one God. When speaking of hypostatic inter-relatedness we speak of Threeness, there is the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. These are not conflicting, contradictory statements, but complimentary statements.
-CryptoLutheran
Is that not Modalism though? I disagree with the innate threeness as in there only being three. If I want to call God "Creator" and add it to the group, I don't see the problem with that. God is known by many names and can be many things.
For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. (Isaiah 9:6 ESV)
most of the philosophers who believed in God believed in Its absolute unity because it is impossible for more than one being to be infinite, because if there are two there must be a "boundary" between them
which makes them finite and therefore not God
when was Trinity revealed? in the bible Jesus is called the son of God but not God, maybe he was just like Moses or as Islam views Mohammad?
there are Christians who believe in absolute unity such as the Arians, is anything in the new testament against it?
There a lot of Christians that believe that God is One and it is very easily justified from scripture. For me the three manifestations of God are fine, but I don't limit myself to those three. It's considered heresy by mainstream Christians though. Never understood why.
Oh look this is one of the few things that makes me an unorthodox Christian. I feel that "Orthodox" Christians believe in 3 Gods. I'll probably get in trouble for saying that. The 3 'persons' are in fact 3 'manifestations' of a singular God that can exist at the same time while still retaining their inherent oneness. It's essentially Modalism. If I want to discuss that I probably have to move a couple forums over.
There a lot of Christians that believe that God is One and it is very easily justified from scripture. For me the three manifestations of God are fine, but I don't limit myself to those three. It's considered heresy by mainstream Christians though. Never understood why.
In fact, virtually all Christians believe that God is One, including Trinitarians.There a lot of Christians that believe that God is One and it is very easily justified from scripture.
For me the three manifestations of God are fine, but I don't limit myself to those three. It's considered heresy by mainstream Christians though. Never understood why.
Who was Jesus talking to when he was praying in the garden of Gethsemane?
What do you mean that you don't limit yourself to those three?
In fact, virtually all Christians believe that God is One, including Trinitarians.
Because the Bible indicates that there are three. If it said that there are two...or four instead...we'd be going by that.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?