Trinity question

[Simonline]

Angels speak, act, and are referred to as if they were God.

But the Bible does not say that created angels are made in the image of God and unless it does we should not assume that they are especially since the image is fundamental to the Male/Female relationship.

Furthermore, with the exception of 'The Angel of the Lord' who is a pre-Incarnate manifestation of the second Person of the Trinity - the eternally begotten Son/Word of God, no angel is EVER (except either in error or by those who wish to worship them) referred to as if they are God?!

I asserted no such thing.

"It is a non sequitur because after dismissing angels as a possibility he concludes the plural must refer to God (the Father) and Jesus. I do not agree that necessarily follows."

If it does not refer to angels then to whom might it refer other than the Trinitarian [Father, Son and Holy Spirit] God? If the 'us' of Gen.1:26-27 refers to some mysterious 'creature' then surely God would make further reference to it (or them) other than simply 'us', especially if Man is made in it's (or their) image?!

Please don't try and play mind games with me because I will not play ball. It is a perfectly reasonable deduction based on the information to hand, to conclude that, in the absence of explicit information to the contrary, Man is made in the image of God alone. Christian theology is based on Divine revelation and not endless hypothetical possibilities.

Simonline.

 

[Brennin]

But the Bible does not say that created angels are made in the image of God and unless it does we should not assume that they are especially since the image is fundamental to the Male/Female relationship.

I am not the one making a definitive statement on the matter. Your co-religionist of like-mind is the one who made the definitive assertion.

Furthermore, with the exception of 'The Angel of the Lord' who is a pre-Incarnate manifestation of the second Person of the Trinity - the eternally begotten Son/Word of God, no angel is EVER (except either in error or by those who wish to worship them) referred to as if they are God?!

Did you follow my link? If you had, you would have seen that I sunk that battleship.



"It is a non sequitur because after dismissing angels as a possibility he concludes the plural must refer to God (the Father) and Jesus. I do not agree that necessarily follows."

If it does not refer to angels then to whom might it refer other than the Trinitarian [Father, Son and Holy Spirit] God? If the 'us' of Gen.1:26-27 refers to some mysterious 'creature' then surely God would make further reference to it (or them) other than simply 'us', especially if Man is made in it's (or their) image?!

Two words: pluralis majestatis.

Please don't try and play mind games with me because I will not play ball. It is a perfectly reasonable deduction based on the information to hand, to conclude that, in the absence of explicit information to the contrary, Man is made in the image of God alone. Christian theology is based on Divine revelation and not endless hypothetical possibilities.

Mind games? My point was that Genesis 1.26 does not support the doctrine of the Trinity, no more, no less.

 

[Simonline]

There is no need to be rude.

There is no need to be both pig-headed and obstinate, repetatively repeating one's own theological presuppositions in the teeth of overwhelming evidence to the contrary whilst completely ignoring all such evidence. Such practise is both deceitful and dishonest (not to mention very frustrating for those who have gone to great effort to articulate an extremely difficult doctrine as best they can).

I don't mind going the 'extra mile' for those who are struggling to comprehend it but to just have it repeatedly thrown back in one's face by those who refuse point blank to even read let alone consider any arguments in favor of a position which does not agree with their theological presuppositions is very frustrating...as the old saying goes, enough to try the patience of any saint.

Simonline

 

[Brennin]

There is no need to be both pig-headed and obstinate, repetatively repeating one's own theological presuppositions in the teeth of overwhelming evidence to the contrary whilst completely ignoring all such evidence. Such practise is both deceitful and dishonest (not to mention very frustrating for those who have gone to great effort to articulate an extremely difficult doctrine as best they can).

I don't mind going the 'extra mile' for those who are struggling to comprehend it but to just have it repeatedly thrown back in one's face by those who refuse point blank to even read let alone consider any arguments in favor of a position which does not agree with their theological presuppositions is very frustrating...as the old saying goes, enough to try the patience of any saint.

Simonline

Obviously, 2ducklow does not find your trinitarian arguments compelling (nor, for that matter, do I).

 

[gort]

Brennin quotes:

Mind games? My point was that Genesis 1.26 does not support the doctrine of the Trinity, no more, no less.

Actually, it does give much credence to the Triune God.

Unless you can show that angels create.

Yet we know that through the Logos, all things were created. And we know from Genesis that God created, in the beginning.

Was God talking to the angels when He said,

Gen 1:26 And God said, Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creepers creeping on the earth.

??

Can you provide Scripture that tells us angels create?

thanx

<><

 

[gort]

Brennin,

Regarding the Angel of the Lord.......

I thought I'd mentioned somewhere before, but the Angel of the Lord is an interesting study. The most interesting of all, is that often times this Angel of the Lord will speak with authority, usually found when saying, "I will......"

Often times not, the angel of the Lord does not speak in this authority. You've cited quite a few in your reference post to show the difference.

Heb 1:1 God, who at many times and in many ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets,
Heb 1:2 has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, by whom also He made the worlds,
Heb 1:3 who being the shining splendor of His glory, and the express image of His essence, and upholding all things by the word of His power, through Himself cleansing of our sins, He sat down on the right of the Majesty on high,
Heb 1:4 being made so much better than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
Heb 1:5 For to which of the angels did He say at any time, "You are My Son, this day I have begotten You?" And again, "I will be to Him a Father, and He shall be to Me a Son?"
Heb 1:6 And again, when He brings in the First-born into the world, He says, "And let all the angels of God worship Him."
Heb 1:7 And of the angels He says, "Who makes His angels spirits and His ministers a flame of fire."
Heb 1:8 But to the Son He says, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever. A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.
Heb 1:9 You have loved righteousness and hated iniquity, therefore God, Your God, has anointed You with the oil of gladness above Your fellows."
Heb 1:10 And, "You, Lord, have laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the works of Your hands. Heb 1:11 They shall perish, but You will remain. And they shall all become old as a garment,
Heb 1:12 and as a covering You shall fold them up, and they shall be changed. But You are the same, and Your years shall not fail."
Heb 1:13 But to which of the angels, did He say at any time, "Sit on My right hand until I make Your enemies Your footstool?"
Heb 1:14 Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for those who shall be heirs of salvation?

verse 8 is interesting.....

<><

 

[hybrid]

In the beginning was the word and the word was with god and the word was god.

Here we have the father as God together with his word whom is Jesus.

Since no logical person after reading the few paragraphs of John would conclude otherwise that the author is referring to Jesus Christ as the word of God.

Though there is one God the father, john emphasized that the word was with the Father in the beginning.

The Father was together with his word in the beginning.

So that word was one with the Father. The Word was at the bosom of the Father.
The word of God whom JEsus was called always existed with the Father so that the two is inseparable.
THIS IS THE POINT OF JOHN!

THE FATHER GOD AND HIS WORD IS INSEPARABLE.

Any attempt to separate the two will always lead to erroneous teachings. And the biblical interpretation will eventually slide down either to tritheism, or modalism.

But worse, to arianism, which teaches that jesus Christ is a created god as oppose to trinity teaches Jesus Christ is the son of god, ( eternaly begotten god always existed with god from eternity)and therfore cannot be a creation of god.. (not made, but begotten)

 

[Simonline]

In the beginning was the word and the word was with god and the word was god.

Here we have the father as God together with his word whom is Jesus.

Since no logical person after reading the few paragraphs of John would conclude otherwise that the author is referring to Jesus Christ as the word of God.

Though there is one God the father, john emphasized that the word was with the Father in the beginning.

The Father was together with his word in the beginning.

So that word was one with the Father. The Word was at the bosom of the Father.
The word of God whom JEsus was called always existed with the Father so that the two is inseparable.
THIS IS THE POINT OF JOHN!

THE FATHER GOD AND HIS WORD IS INSEPARABLE.

Any attempt to separate the two will always lead to erroneous teachings. And the biblical interpretation will eventually slide down either to tritheism, or modalism.

But worse, to arianism, which teaches that jesus Christ is a created god as oppose to trinity teaches Jesus Christ is the son of god, ( eternaly begotten god always existed with god from eternity)and therfore cannot be a creation of god.. (not made, but begotten)

The Word not only existed WITH God He also WAS God [Trinitarian YHWH]...don't forget the last clause of Jn.1:1. Judeo-Christianity is a strictly monotheistic faith (Deut.6:4; Isa.43:10-13) not a duo or tritheistic faith.

Simonline.

 

[Simonline]

Obviously, 2ducklow does not find your trinitarian arguments compelling (nor, for that matter, do I).

That is because both of you refuse point blank to honestly objectively and impartially consider and weigh all the evidence contained within the Scriptures and formulate your theology on the basis of that evidence. Instead, you both prefer to tenaciously hang on to your own theological presuppositions whilst ignoring all Biblical evidence to the contrary. This is both deceitful and dishonest (2Tim.2:15).

As for Gen.1:26-27. That text teaches that God created Man in his own image (not the images of God and some other mysterious third party combined?!). In the absence of any evidence to the contrary (i.e. evidence that Man IS made in the image of both God and some mysterious third party) then it most cetainly does support the doctrine of the Trinity.

As for 'pluralis majestatis' or 'the royal 'we'' The evidence of Scripture that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are all Divine proves that 'pluralis majestatis' is not to be understood with reference to the image in which Man is made but rather a reference to the three Persons who comprise the Trinitarian God (cf. Col.1:15-17).

Simonline.

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]The whole thing didn't make sense to me. I demonstrated why, in my opinion, it was a nonsensical explanation of trinity in post #89 of this thread on page 9.[/SIZE]

I read your so-called post #89 it did not make sense to me. You pulled out a few sentences of one article, there were at least 5 articles, pooh-poohed them and ignored the rest of the post.

And OBTW that was not proof for the Trinity but a definition/explanation of the Trinity, which I posted because I have never encountered an anti-Trinitarian who could accurately state what the Trinity is or what Trinitarians believe. They, as you, are always attacking a straw man. So if you want to discuss the Trinity, that is what I will discuss not some nonsense you have concocted.

And if you want to critique any of those articles, do it right.

 

[Simonline]

I read your so-called post #89 it did not make sense to me. You pulled out a few sentences pooh-poohed them and ignored the rest of the post.

Sounds about all of which the anti-Trinitarians are capable?

Simonline.

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]Did you follow my link? If you had, you would have seen that I sunk that battleship.[/SIZE]

Arguing by link are you? What happened to your, "Let's explain everything in our own words, not linking to websites", etc? I didn't see any sinking battleships.

[SIZE=-1]Two words: pluralis majestatis.[/SIZE]

Most anti-Trinis argue that the Trinity is wrong because the word "Trinity" is not found in the Bible. Can the proponents of this so-called "pluralis majestatis" theory produce any historical, Biblical, lexical, etc. evidence for this theory? Did the ancient Jews have any such concept or did they also understand this as Trinitarians do today, as reflected in their own historical writings such as the Talmud? For example,

"Rabbi Samuel Bar Hanman in the name of Rabbi Jonathan said, that at the time when Moses wrote the Torah, writing a portion of it daily, when he came to this verse which says, "And Elohim said, let us make man in our image after our likeness," Moses said, "Master of the universe, why do you give herewith an excuse to the sectarians (who believe in the Tri-unity of God)." God answered Moses, "You write and whoever wants to err, let him err."1

1Midrash Rabbah on Genesis 1:26, New York: NOP Press, N.D.

http://www.jewsforjesus.org/publications/issues/1_8/jewish​

Now I wonder why the ancient Jews or Moses did not mention this so-called "pluralis majestatis?" Maybe because it was a 19th century anti-Trinitarian copout, with no basis in Biblical history.

 

[2ducklow]

I read your so-called post #89 it did not make sense to me. You pulled out a few sentences of one article, there were at least 5 articles, pooh-poohed them and ignored the rest of the post.

I was only dealing with one article.

And OBTW that was not proof for the Trinity but a definition/explanation of the Trinity, which I posted because I have never encountered an anti-Trinitarian who could accurately state what the Trinity is or what Trinitarians believe.

I believe that is because Trinity makes no sense and non trinitarians try and make sense out of scripture.

They, as you, are always attacking a straw man.

What strawman?

So if you want to discuss the Trinity, that is what I will discuss not some nonsense you have concocted.

It wasn't something I concocted, Mr. White concocted it and I commented on his concoction.

I discussed your definition/explanation and you are ducking out. Merely claiming that I made no sense. You haven't given even one minute example of anything I said that made no sense. I demonstrated how Mr. white made no sense on sevral points. I didn't merely claim he made no sense then duck out as you do.

And if you want to critique any of those articles, do it right.

Well again all we have is your unbacked up assertion that I didn't do it right.

 

[2ducklow]

If the doctrine of the Trinity has been around for 2000 years

The doctrine of the trinity has only been around since about 450 A.D. with the athanasian creed. But even if the doctrine of the trinity began immediately after the completion of the new testament or even durring the time the new testament was written that would still not make it scritpure. Gnosticsim was around at the time of the writting of the scirpture and it isn't a biblical doctrine. It has been around for over 2000 years.

would you care to explain how 'my finite mind' has come up with such a doctrine since I am nowhere near 2000 years old?!

My point was that the doctrine of the trinity is not scripture but an intepretation of scripture by man. It is man who interpets what God Says. Any doctrine that any of us have was first made by someone or by several people if it is a doctrine of God, for god does not reveal things to just one person I believe. Safety in numbers.

So because the terms 'Trinity' and 'Trinitarian' are not to be found in the Scriptures then the doctrine is also equally unbiblical. In other words your 'God' is reduced to the level of what you can comprehend.

Explaining God with logic, noncontradictory statements, and statements that make sense increases my understanding of God. Explaining my God with contradicitons, illogic and nonsensical statements reduces God to something I can't understand.

The Bible calls that idolatry.

Idolatry is having other Gods besides the only true God. I only have one God, God the Father. Therefore, I am not an idoloter.

I'm obviously swinging pearls before a pig-headed mule who delights to go round and round in circles whilst completely ignoring any arguments but his own.

Simonline

No comment.

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]Well again all we have is your unbacked up assertion that I didn't do it right.[/SIZE]

And all we have is your "unsuppported", I think is the word you were looking for, assertion that you did do it right. A couple of out-of-context sentences, blah, blah, blah. Sorry, dood, Dr. White has standing in the Christian scholarly community, you have none, it will take more than that. And then there were a few other definitions of the trinity. And please note, you acknowleged that you only addressed one article but blew off my entire post as not making sense.

Meanwhile, I saw some of the usual suspects giving their knee jerk opinions on John 1:1.

This brief quote from the Jewish Encyclopedia, documents that in the Targums, the Aramaic translations of the Bible during the Babylonian captivity, ca. 700 b.c., the Aramaic word, “memra” was substituted for YHWH. The complete article has over 100 citations where memra, i.e. the Word, was substituted for [size=+1]&#1497;&#1492;&#1493;&#1492;[/size]. Before and during the time of John, Jews believed that The “Memra”, i.e.”The Word”, literally was God and that God literally was the Word. John wasn’t saying anything new. This is the context how John 1:1 should be understood not 21st century philosiphication. (Yeah, its not a word, so what?)

Jewish Encyclopedia-Memra-In the Targum:

In the Targum the Memra figures constantly as the manifestation of the divine power, or as God's messenger in place of God Himself, wherever the predicate is not in conformity with the dignity or the spirituality of the Deity.

Instead of the Scriptural “You have not believed in the Lord,” Targ. Deut. i. 32 has “You have not believed in the word of the Lord”; instead of “ I shall require it [vengeance] from him,” Targ. Deut. xviii. 19 has “My word shall require it.” “The Memra,” instead of “the Lord,” is “the consuming fire” (Targ. Deut. ix. 3; comp. Targ. Isa. xxx. 27). The Memra “plagued the people” (Targ. Yer. to Ex. xxxii. 35). “The Memra smote him” (II Sam. vi. 7; comp. Targ. I Kings xviii. 24; Hos. xiii. 14; et al.). Not “God,” but “the Memra,” is met with in Targ. Ex. xix. 17 (Targ. Yer. “the Shekinah”; comp. Targ. Ex. xxv. 22: “I will order My Memra to be there”). “I will cover thee with My Memra,” instead of “My hand” (Targ. Ex. xxxiii. 22). Instead of “My soul,” “My Memra shall reject you” (Targ. Lev. xxvi. 30; comp. Isa. i. 14, xlii. 1; Jer. vi. 8; Ezek. xxiii. 18). “The voice of the Memra,” instead of “God,” is heard (Gen. iii. 8; Deut. iv. 33, 36; v. 21; Isa. vi. 8; et al.). Where Moses says, “I stood between the Lord and you” (Deut. v. 5), the Targum has, “between the Memra of the Lord and you”; and the “sign between Me and you” becomes a “sign between My Memra and you” (Ex. xxxi. 13, 17; comp. Lev. xxvi. 46; Gen. ix. 12; xvii. 2, 7, 10; Ezek. xx. 12). Instead of God, the Memra comes to Abimelek (Gen. xx. 3), and to Balaam (Num. xxiii. 4). His Memra aids and accompanies Israel, performing wonders for them (Targ. Num. xxiii. 21; Deut. i. 30, xxxiii. 3; Targ. Isa. lxiii. 14; Jer. xxxi. 1; Hos. ix. 10 [comp. xi. 3, “the messenger-angel”]). The Memra goes before Cyrus (Isa. xlv. 12). The Lord swears by His Memra (Gen. xxi. 23, xxii. 16, xxiv. 3; Ex. xxxii. 13; Num. xiv. 30; Isa. xlv. 23; Ezek. xx. 5; et al.). It is His Memra that repents (Targ. Gen. vi. 6, viii. 21; I Sam. xv. 11, 35). Not His “hand,” but His “Memra has laid the foundation of the earth” (Targ. Isa. xlviii. 13); for His Memra's or Name's sake does He act (l.c. xlviii. 11; II Kings xix. 34). Through the Memra God turns to His people (Targ. Lev. xxvi. 90; II Kings xiii. 23), becomes the shield of Abraham (Gen. xv. 1), and is with Moses (Ex. iii. 12; iv. 12, 15) and with Israel (Targ. Yer. to Num. x. 35, 36; Isa. lxiii. 14). It is the Memra, not God Himself, against whom man offends (Ex. xvi. 8; Num. xiv. 5; I Kings viii. 50; II Kings xix. 28; Isa. i. 2, 16; xlv. 3, 20; Hos. v. 7, vi. 7; Targ. Yer. to Lev. v. 21, vi. 2; Deut. v. 11); through His Memra Israel shall be justified (Targ. Isa. xlv. 25); with the Memra Israel stands in communion (Targ. Josh. xxii. 24, 27); [Instead of God], in the Memra man puts his trust (Targ. Gen. xv. 6; Targ. Yer. to Ex. xiv. 31; Jer. xxxix. 18, xlix. 11).

Mediatorship.

Like the Shekinah (comp. Targ. Num. xxiii. 21), the Memra is accordingly the manifestation of God. “The Memra brings Israel nigh unto God and sits on His throne receiving the prayers of Israel” (Targ. Yer. to Deut. iv. 7). It shielded Noah from the flood (Targ. Yer. to Gen. vii. 16) and brought about the dispersion of the seventy nations (l.c. xi. 8); it is the guardian of Jacob (Gen. xxviii. 20-21, xxxv. 3) and of Israel (Targ. Yer. to Ex. xii. 23, 29); it works all the wonders in Egypt (l.c. xiii. 8, xiv. 25); hardens the heart of Pharaoh (l.c. xiii. 15); goes before Israel in the wilderness (Targ. Yer. to Ex. xx. 1); blesses Israel (Targ. Yer. to Num. xxiii. 8); battles for the people (Targ. Josh. iii. 7, x. 14, xxiii. 3). As in ruling over the destiny of man the Memra is the agent of God (Targ. Yer. to Num. xxvii. 16), so also is it in the creation of the earth (Isa. xlv. 12) and in the execution of justice (Targ. Yer. to Num. xxxiii. 4). So, in the future, shall the Memra be the comforter (Targ. Isa. lxvi. 13): “My Shekinah I shall put among you, My Memra shall be unto you for a redeeming deity, and you shall be unto My Name a holy people” (Targ. Yer. to Lev. xxii. 12). “My Memra shall be unto you like a good plowman who takes off the yoke from the shoulder of the oxen”; “the Memra will roar to gather the exiled” (Targ. Hos. xi. 5, 10). The Memra is “the witness” (Targ. Yer. xxix. 23); it will be to Israel like a father (l.c. xxxi. 9) and “will rejoice over them to do them good” (l.c. xxxii. 41). “In the Memra the redemption will be found” (Targ. Zech. xii. 5). “The holy Word” was the subject of the hymns of Job (Test. of Job, xii. 3, ed. Kohler).

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=399&amp;letter=M​

 

[2ducklow]

Obviously this is a different Person to the one who is speaking therefore it must be the Father since the Messiah repeatedly declares that he has been sent by the Father but never declares that he has been sent by the Spirit.

If 'him' is the 'who' of v.25 then you are stating that the Messiah and the Father are not only the same Being (i.e. Trinitarianism) but also the same Person

Jesus said "except ye believe that I AM ye shall die in your sins"
the phrasees asked him because of this statement "who do yout think you are?"
The implication being that they believe Jesus is claiming to be the I AM and that they are asking him to clarify it for them.
Jesus responds by saying that he is sent by him. which is his way of saying I am not him but rather sent by him, i.e. the I AM.
then the bible states that they didn't know that Jesus was speaking of the Father. Meaning that they didn't know that when Jesus said "I AM" he was refering to his father and not himself.
thats how I see that passage.

 

[2ducklow]

And all we have is your "unsuppported", I think is the word you were looking for, assertion that you did do it right.

The proof is in the pudding. you won't comment on anything I said. Name one thing I said that I didn't do right. Everything I said makes sense to me. So what I said is the proof that I did it right.

A couple of out-of-context sentences, blah, blah, blah. Sorry, dood, Dr. White has standing in the Christian scholarly community, you have none, it will take more than that. And then there were a few other definitions of the trinity. And please note, you acknowleged that you only addressed one article

You haven't commented on anything I said in my response to what mr. white said, except to say I'm all wrong. Most likely if i responded in a detailed manner to everything you posted you would likewise claim I made no sense or did it wrong and not say how.

 

[Simonline]

The doctrine of the trinity has only been around since about 450 A.D. with the athanasian creed. But even if the doctrine of the trinity began immediately after the completion of the new testament or even durring the time the new testament was written that would still not make it scritpure. Gnosticsim was around at the time of the writting of the scirpture and it isn't a biblical doctrine. It has been around for over 2000 years.

Well of course the doctrine of the Trinity isn't Scripture, but it IS Scriptural. The doctrine of the Trinity was formulated by the early Church in order to both encapsulate and remain true to ALL that the Judeo-Christian Scriptures, as the [written] Word of God, reveal concerning the Divine Nature of God as both three separate and distinct Persons whilst at the same time being only ONE BEING. The early Church were careful not to exclude any aspect of the Divine revelation no mater how nonsensical to our finite human minds the composite picture might be since the revelation was dealing with the Nature of the Divine Being himself who, as the Infinite Divine Creator has revealed himself to be Trinitarian rather than Unitarian in Nature and certainly not duo or tritheistic. Sadly, there are those, like yourself, who simply cannot handle the Truth and therefore prefer to merely propagate and reiterate their own theological presuppositions independent of (though very loosely based upon) the Divine revelation.

My point was that the doctrine of the trinity is not scripture but an intepretation of scripture by man. It is man who interpets what God Says. Any doctrine that any of us have was first made by someone or by several people if it is a doctrine of God, for god [God] does not reveal things to just one person I believe. Safety in numbers.

Well, of course, the doctrine of the Trinity is not part of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures (but it IS Scriptural) since it is a doctrine formulated by the early Church in order to both encapsulate and remain true to ALL that the Judeo-Christian Scriptures, as the [written] Word of God, reveal concerning the Divine Nature of God as both three separate and distinct Persons whilst at the same time being only ONE BEING. The early Church were careful not to exclude any aspect of the Divine revelation no mater how nonsensical to our finite human minds the composite picture might be since the revelation was dealing with the Nature of the Divine Being himself who, as the Infinite Divine Creator has revealed himself to be Trinitarian rather than Unitarian in Nature and certainly not duo or tritheistic.

Groundhog Day or what?!

Explaining God with logic, noncontradictory statements, and statements that make sense increases my understanding of God. Explaining my God with contradicitons, illogic and nonsensical statements reduces God to something I can't understand.

But that is exactly my point! You, as a finite human creature, are trying to comprehend the Infinite Divine Creator on the basis of human reason and logic alone (human reason and logic that is adversely affected by the influence of sin) instead of on the basis of Divine Revelation, human reason and logic (and strictly in that order). If you start from the premise of human reason and logic and then try and incorporate the Divine Revelation you will not understand the Trinity because God will deliberately hide it from you precisely because you are starting from human reason and logic and not Divine revelation. Effectively your approach to Divine Revelation is essentially Humanistic - 'man [not God] is the measure of all things' (Lk.10:21; 1Cor.1:18-31; 2:6-16; Jer.29:11-13).

Idolatry is having other Gods besides the only true God. I only have one God, God the Father. Therefore, I am not an idoloter.

Exactly. The 'god' that you worship is not the God who has revealed himself through the Judeo-Christian Scriptures but a different 'god'. It is a 'god' of your own [intellectual] creation, that is unitarian in nature. Since it is not the God of the Judeo-Christian faith it cannot be the One True God. Therefore it must, by definition, be an idol. I leave you and everyone else to draw their own conclusions.

Simonline.

 

[Simonline]

Everything I said makes sense to me.

Interestingly, that's exactly what everyone who's criminally insane says! Only when it makes sense to the outside world (as well as the 'inside' world) does it really make sense!

And before you (like a broken record) try and argue that the Trinity does not make sense either, that's because it is based on Divine Revelation and not just human reason and logic (Lk.10:21).

Simonline

 

[Brennin]

Arguing by link are you? What happened to your, "Let's explain everything in our own words, not linking to websites", etc?

The post I linked to was my own.

I didn't see any sinking battleships.

Perhaps you need (better) glasses.

Now I wonder why the ancient Jews or Moses did not mention this so-called "pluralis majestatis?" Maybe because it was a 19th century anti-Trinitarian copout, with no basis in Biblical history.

Moses and the Jews did not mention three hupostases in one ousia, either. Maybe that is because it was a 4th century copout with no basis in Biblical history.