Trinity question

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]I have never refered to a rock as a being. I have never heard of anyone refering to a rock as a being. A being has always been to me and the people I talk to something that is alive. It appears from your elucidation of the symbols in your definition, and from my looking at a couple of dictionarys, that some definitions of being include things. Seems mighty strange to me. Maybe its like the way they use the word in pointy head intellectual circles but in the real world everyone I've run into calls a rock a thing and a living organism a being. At anyrate, whether a rock is a thing, a being, or not a being is not all that relevant to the discussion. Really a piqiune point I should think.[/SIZE]

COPOUT! If it was such a picayune, I think is the word you're trying to say, then why did [SIZE=+1]you[/SIZE] make such a big issue out of "rock" and "being," writing at least 2-3 paragraphs, about Mr. rock, not having a personality, etc. Most scholars are very precise in their writing and will use specific words to communicate specific ideas, just as Dr. White did here with "person" and "being." He used the most exact words he had available in the English language to make his point.

As I said, the fact, many people misuse words in casual conversation, does not change the meaning of the word and scholars use the best word available to precisely communicate their ideas.

Now there is lot more of my posts to deal with, if you can. I suggest you keep a dictionary handy, and BAGD, TDNT, Louw-Nida, and other recognized language resources. I am not really interested in what people, including you, think, suppose, assume, guess, etc. words mean because some dood on TV may have misused the word in one way or another.

 

[2ducklow]

Common sense dictates that ONLY a PERSON can have a PERSONality. Here is the definition, show me a cat having a personality? A cat has a disposition, traits, characteristics, maybe even moods, etc. but a cat cannot have a PERSONALity, because a cat is not a PERSON! The fact that some people informally and mistakenly apply the word personality to animals, does not change the technical meaning of the word. that is if we exclude the trinitarian definition of person that is sometimes included in the definiton of person. It is defined that way merely because people use the word to call god 3 persons. it is a definition of person that runs counter to all other definitions of person and isn't included in your definition for example. So you see, this only reinforces my point. I don't refer to a rock as a being I don't know anyone who does except you now. I don 't use it that way so the definition of rock being a being because it exists is not the way normal people use it. It must be used in intellectual circles that way I suppose. So really it doesnt mean that a rock is a being it is just called that by intellectuals. Something alive is the definition of being that all the people I know use for being. It certainly should be the numero uno (you speak German I'll speak spanish) definition in that thats how everyone I know uses it.

Main Entry: per·son·al·i·ty





Pronunciation: "p&r-s&n-'a-l&-tE, "p&r-'sna-

Function: noun

Inflected Form(s): plural –ties

Etymology: Middle English personalite, from Late Latin personalitat-, personalitas, from personalis

1 a : the quality or state of being a person b : personal existence

2 a : the condition or fact of relating to a particular person; specifically : the condition of referring directly to or being aimed disparagingly or hostilely at an individual b : an offensively personal remark <angrily resorted to personalities>

3 : the complex of characteristics that distinguishes an individual or a nation or group; especially : the totality of an individual's behavioral and emotional characteristics

4 a : distinction or excellence of personal and social traits; also : a person having such quality b : a person of importance, prominence, renown, or notoriety <a TV personality>

synonym see DISPOSITION

If a cat isn't a person according to this definition, then likewise, God is not a person according to this definition. And trinity fails because it claims god the father is God, and it claims that God the father is a person. The fact that some people informally and mistakenly apply the word personality to god, does not change the technical meaning of the word.

Who cares what you say or think?

You have said this a lot. If you don't care what I think then why are we having this discussion. Seems kinda silly to talk to someone and not care what they think.

White was not trying to “prove” anything!

Ok, Whites definition of trinity is nonsensical. As I have shown.

Where does scripture say you “don’t literally see the father?” Where does scripture say, “you see the attributes of the father at work in Jesus?” Heb 1:3, 2 Cor 4:4, Col 1:15

Where does it say God is 3 persons of god? Your interpretation is that god is 3 persons, mine is what I said above.

That is your problem, not mine, the scriptures make perfect sense to me, without corrupting, twisting and changing the meaning, trying to force it to fit a false doctrine. If Jesus had intended for us to look for a non-literal interpretation, he would have told us.

The scriptures make perfect sense to me as well without corrupting, twisting, and changing the meaning trying to force it to fit a false doctrine.





Where in the bible did Jesus ever say, "Look for a nonliteral interpretation to this"? When Jesus said "except ye eat my flesh and drink my blood ye have no life in you”, he didn't say, "Look for a non literal interpretation of this. In fact he didn’t even explain it even when people abandoned him for the saying. If Jesus had of explained what he meant by that statement no doubt they wouldn’t have left him. I believe Jesus wanted them to believe in him even when they didn't understand what he meant. As his disciples did, "to whom shall we go, only you have the words of life".

Common sense dictates that ONLY a PERSON can have a PERSONality

don't know a better word to describe what animals have that describes it better than personality. I agree that animals aren't persons; I believe only humans are persons. To say a cat is a person doesn't fit, and to say god is a person doesn't fit.

Yours is the irrelevant rambling. You evidently can’t even read, White was not trying to “prove” anything! It does exactly what White wrote it for. It illustrates the DEFINITION of the Trinity, and represents how non-Trinitarian false religions, such as yours, deny Biblical attributes of Jesus or the Holy Spirit, and the result.

One doesn't define a doctrine but what others think. One should not define trinity by what oneness, Unitarians, Jehovah’s Witness, or Mormons believe. Something like a third of the space in his definition of trinity was taken up with the diagram showing how trinity isn’t what others believe.

BIG difference, which you apparently can’t comprehend. Jesus said, “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father,“ You twist it to say, "in tune with the Father" or "like seeing the father."

So do you believe Jesus is the Father? Or what? Jesus is the father would be the obvious straightforward interpretation. How do you twist it from that obvious meaning?





All of this discussion we are having is kinda piqayune because it evades the central point. That being, Dr. white with his elaborate deceptive definition of trinity hasn't demonstrated at all a premise statement of his that 3 beings are in one being is a false conclusion. He has actually only proven it. God is a being and a person is a being only proves the illogic of trinity, namely that 3 beings are one being. that is why I feel Dr. white had to resort to a murky explanation to hide the fact he was merely proving what his definition was suppose to disprove. there's no way he could deny that 3 beings are one being is t he resultant meaning of trinity if he had been lucid in his description of trinity.



A being either has a personality or doesn’t. If a being doesn't have a personality then it is not a person. If a being has a personality then it is a person. Correct? Isn’t that what Dr. white is saying? So that means God is a being cause he has a personality. And a person of God is a being because a person of God has a personality. Only proves the statement he claimed was false is true, namely that 3 beings are in one being.

But I do agree with dr. white that three beings in one being are untrue.

 

[2ducklow]

Real easy to harmonize without ignoring any scripture, as you are doing. No man has seen the father, past tense, in the past. He who has seen me has seen the father, now, present tense.

Uh , has seen isn't past tense. It's past perfect or pluperfect or present perfect, I think its called present perfect but I'm not sure exactly,but not past tense. has is present tense seen is past tense conjugation of to see. no man has would be in the present tense meaning no one has.. ex. I have not seen God. I don't see him now (present sense) and I didn't see him any time in the past. so its not past tense. tech.
If it were past tense then it would have read "No one had saw God". sometimes past tense is called simple past.

But I'm sure you know that just slipped your mind probably.

 

[Maxster211]

Oh, I see. The word Godhead (GODHOOD) was three times used by KJV to mean the state of being divine and still the universally accepted meaning for it. I guess it can still be applied in Christian usage to describe trinity. It simply mean that the “state” of being God is shared by the father son and holy ghost. That’s why they are inseparably one and equal in all aspect of “Godness”.


The mormoms erred to separate the three and turned the trinity to tritheism. I gather that they also teaches that believers can be Gods. This is new age religion.

Thats exxactly what I meant.

 

[Maxster211]

you mean “as a Creator and a Father

I keep spelling it wrong. That is what I meant.

I beg to disagree, if you read the book of acts, its all about the Holy spirit in action. If you have an electronic concordance, type the word spirit and hit it. You’ll be amazed how often it as mentioned in the NT. But in a sense you are right that the holy spirit is somehow always on the sideline compare to Jesus and the Father. I guess He is just s silent operator. Not drawing attention to himself but to Jesus. He seemed to be happy and content every time Jesus is lifted up and honored.

I was using those as examples, though I do need to start reading that book more often.

Let’s start one right here.

I believe it matters, because the belief in trinity meant that you believe in the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost as revealed in scriptures. For this is the heart of trinity.

If you mean that it doesn’t matter whether you understand or not the “mechanics of their make-up” (ontological nature of God), I guess you’re right. As long as you believe and obey this God, especially the things our Lord Jesus taught as recorded in the NT.

I meant that you don't need to believe in the Trinity itself as long as you believe that Jesus is the Savior and God is the Creator, and you go by what the bible says and don't add or subtract anything from Gods word.

 

[Maxster211]

You know, has anyone every thought about the fact that the Holy Spirit could have been, like say, Gabriel, Michael the ArchAngel, or the Messanger from God in the Old Testament, like the one that talked with Daniel about the Prince of Persia or the one that talked with Joshua?

 

[2ducklow]

Greetings Der Alter:

I have here what I feel is a concise summation of Dr. whites def. showing how it is nonsensical. Hopefully this makes things clearer. If my conclusions or anything here is wrong I gladly await your pointing it out.

1. According to Dr. White, a Person isn’t exactly the same as a being. A person has personality and being or possibly existance. . . A being can have personality and existence or a being can just have existence.



Conclusion, a person is always a being but a being isn’t always a person. Correct?



2. so both rocks and people are beings. But rocks aren’t persons but people are persons. because rocks don't have personalities




Am I following him so far?



3. Rocks cats and dogs don’t have personal attributes but people do.



That is according to Dr. white, not me. I just wanted to reiterate that point.



4. Then he says there are 3 classifications of personal beings. God , man, and angels. And that these guys are whats and whos. Whereas rocks cats and dogs are just whats.

5. then the Dr. says “Rocks cannot speak. Cats cannot think of themselves over against others, and, say, work for the common good of "cat kind”



the what group. But he doesn’t say which group a person of

god is in. the what only group? Or the what and who group?



6. then he says “Hence, we are saying that there is one eternal, infinite being of God, shared fully and completely by three persons, Father, Son and Spirit. One what, three who's.”



Ok now he is saying something else he is saying God is a what. He just got through saying God was a what and a who, (#4. god is a personal being, i.e. personal existance .). Now he is also saying a person of god is a who but not a what. That does not compute. See a what is not a personal being so sometimes he says god is a personal being other times he says hes a what or not a personal being. You sure this guy is a doctor?



First he establishes that a being is a what or a what and a who, then he establishes that a person is always a what and a who. Then he concludes that a person of god is a who but not a what. And god a being is a who only but not a what which isn’t part of his definition of a being (what and a who or a what only, a who only wasn’t listed as a definition of a being.)

The good dr. makes no sense.



His conclusion should have been, if he was going to say something that makes sense. God is a being, a what being. A person is always a what and a who being therefore god is a what like a rock or a cat or a dog but a person of god is a what and a who having personality. Which is dumb to the max.

At any rate all he has proved is that god and a person of god are both beings but different kind of beings. Therefore he hasn’t disproved the logical conclusion to triinty namely that 3 beings (what and who beings) are one being (a what being). All he has done is to prove that
"It would be a contradiction, obviously, to say that there are three beings within one being, or three persons within one person. ", which he stated at the beginning of his definition, is correct. He has established that a person is a being and god is a being, just different kinds of beings. He needs to establish that either a person of god isn't a being or that God isn't a being to disprove the above quote. Can't be done.

Also as an addendum, Dr. white didn't define trinity in this document he merely tried in vain to prove 3 beings are one being is not the definition of trinity. He calls it a definition but it really is an attempt to prove that the three persons of the trinity that m ake up one god aren't 3 beings that are one being. Which he only proved is true, namely that 3 beings are one being is the unavoidable conclusion of the definition of trinity.

 

[Der Alte]

2Duck, your post is so chopped up, run together, and garbled I can barely read it. First my previous post which you mixed in with your own comments, followed by your reply, separately. It is customary to use quotation marks when you quote someone else’s ideas, verbatim. Also in this forum there are quote tags, place these around text you want to quote, like this, &#91;quote](quoted text)&#91;quote]

Common sense dictates that ONLY a PERSON can have a PERSONality. Here is the definition, show me a cat having a personality? A cat has a disposition, traits, characteristics, maybe even moods, etc. but a cat cannot have a PERSONALity, because a cat is not a PERSON! The fact that some people informally and mistakenly apply the word personality to animals, does not change the technical meaning of the word.

[size=-1]. . .that is if we exclude the trinitarian definition of person that is sometimes included in the definiton of person[/size][size=+2]*[/size]. [size=-1]It is defined that way merely because people use the word to call god 3 persons. it is a definition of person that runs counter to all other definitions of person and isn't included in your definition for example.[/size]

Are you serious? This is total nonsense! You can make the Bible, or any other writing, say anything you want, if you ignore dictionaries, lexicons, concordances, etc. and make up our own meanings for all the words you don’t like.

What, exactly, is not included in the definition I posted? Please do tell me what is the root word for the word, “[size=+1]person[/size]ality?” Here is a hint, it is a six letter word that I highlighted, at least nine times, in the definition, I posted. And I posted the definition of that root word, at least, twice. In fact, you make a back handed reference to that definition, above, [size=+1]*[/size].

Trying to talk intelligently to you is extremely aggravating and frustrating. You yank words, phrases, and sentences out-of-context, you ignore authoritative study resources, because they prove you wrong, and I have to keep going back and explaining simple, basic, details to you that almost any high school student knows.

This also relates to a later question you raised.

[size=-1]You have said this a lot. If you don't care what I think then why are we having this discussion. Seems kinda silly to talk to someone and not care what they think.[/size]

Virtually every time I said, “I don’t care what you think or say,” you had ignored or blown off a source I quoted, substituting what you think or say for those sources, such as dictionaries, etc., just as you have done here. Are you going to listen to me if I say, “[I don’t care what the dictionary says,] I think/say this word means . . . .?” I don’t think so, in fact, you won’t even accept dictionary definitions, so end of discussion.

Want to discuss what a word means? I will discuss the dictionary, lexicon definition, not what you “think” or ‘say.”

[size=-1]So you see, this only reinforces my point. I don't refer to a rock as a being I don't know anyone who does except you now. I don 't use it that way so the definition of rock being a being because it exists is not the way normal people use it. It must be used in intellectual circles that way I suppose. So really it doesnt mean that a rock is a being it is just called that by intellectuals. Something alive is the definition of being that all the people I know use for being. It certainly should be the numero uno (you speak German I'll speak spanish) definition in that thats how everyone I know uses it.[/size]

See my reply immediately above. I’m quite sure you will find the word “being” used a lot in non-Biblical technical or scholastic writings in its non-personal sense.

Main Entry: per·son·al·i·ty
Pronunciation: "p&r-s&n-'a-l&-tE, "p&r-'sna-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural –ties
Etymology: Middle English personalite, from Late Latin personalitat-, personalitas, from personalis
1 a : the quality or state of being a person b : personal existence
2 a : the condition or fact of relating to a particular person; specifically : the condition of referring directly to or being aimed disparagingly or hostilely at an individual b : an offensively personal remark <angrily resorted to personalities
3 : the complex of characteristics that distinguishes an individual or a nation or group; especially : the totality of an individual's behavioral and emotional characteristics
4 a : distinction or excellence of personal and social traits; also : a person having such quality b : a person of importance, prominence, renown, or notoriety <a TV personality>
synonym see DISPOSITION​

[size=-1]If a cat isn't a person according to this definition, then likewise, God is not a person according to this definition. And trinity fails because it claims god the father is God, and it claims that God the father is a person. The fact that some people informally and mistakenly apply the word personality to god, does not change the technical meaning of the word. [/size]

Please spare me these sophomoric, “Neener, neener, neener, you are one too-oo.” replies. The definition of “personality,” is posted above. Show me exactly how this word does not apply to God? And here to help you is the definition of person, again. If you don’t like definition # 3, then you need to PROVE it should not be there. And you will also have to deal with definition # 5, subsense, SELF, and definition #6. God has a self, Gen 22:8, Amos 6:8, John 5:26, 13:32, 16:27, et. al,

Main Entry: per·son
Pronunciation: 'p&r-s&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French persone, from Latin persona actor's mask, character in a play, person, probably from Etruscan phersu mask, from Greek prosOpa, plural of prosOpon face, mask -- more at PROSOPOPOEIA
1 :HUMAN, INDIVIDUAL -- sometimes used in combination especially by those who prefer to avoid man in compounds applicable to both sexes <chairperson> <spokesperson>
2 : a character or part in or as if in a play : GUISE
3 a : one of the three modes of being in the Trinitarian Godhead as understood by Christians b : the unitary personality of Christ that unites the divine and human natures.
4 a archaic : bodily appearance b : the body of a human being; also : the body and clothing <unlawful search of the person>
5 : the personality of a human being : SELF
6 :[size=+1]one[/size] (as a human being, a partnership, or a corporation) that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties.
7 : reference of a segment of discourse to the speaker, to one spoken to, or to one spoken of as indicated by means of certain pronouns or in many languages by verb inflection
- per·son·hood /-"hud/ noun
- in person : in one's bodily presence.​

[size=-1]Ok, Whites definition of trinity is nonsensical. As I have shown.[/size]

The only thing you have shown is you read and comprehend English, with great difficulty, you don’t know how to use a dictionary, and that you disdain and ignore resources such as Bible dictionaries, lexicons, etc. and twist words to mean what you want them to mean, e.g. “being, personality, person,” etc..

Where does scripture say you “don’t literally see the father?” Where does scripture say, “you see the attributes of the father at work in Jesus?” Heb 1:3, 2 Cor 4:4, Col 1:15

[size=-1]Where does it say God is 3 persons of god? Your interpretation is that god is 3 persons, mine is what I said above. [/size]

More disengage mind, knee jerk,“Neener, neener, neener, you are one too-oo.” Read my post, I explained this before. Jesus said “He who hath seen me has seen the father.” You twist and change the literal, specific, words of Jesus, to say, at least, in your own mind, "in tune with the Father," "like seeing the father,” “you don’t literally see the father,” and “you see the attributes of the father at work in Jesus.”

OTOH the doctrine of the Trinity, based on the totality of scripture, concludes that God has revealed himself in scripture as three distinct persons. Nothing in the Trinity doctrine contradicts any specific statement in the Bible.

And since you object to the word “person,” how about “self, will, and mind? The Father is God, Jesus is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. Scriptures reveal that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit each have a distinct mind, will, and self. Read, don’t read, I don’t care, here are a few posts where I have discussed this, before.

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=15528967&postcount=139

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=16490187&postcount=224

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=15644577#post15644577

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=16995632&postcount=35

That is your problem, not mine, the scriptures make perfect sense to me, without corrupting, twisting and changing the meaning, trying to force it to fit a false doctrine. If Jesus had intended for us to look for a non-literal interpretation, he would have told us.

[size=-1]The scriptures make perfect sense to me as well without corrupting, twisting, and changing the meaning trying to force it to fit a false doctrine. [/size]

“Neener, neener, neener, you are one too-oo.” No, they don’t! If they did you would not change the literal, specific, words of Jesus, “He who hath seen me has seen the father,” to say, in your mind, "in tune with the Father," "like seeing the father,” “you don’t literally see the father,” and “you see the attributes of the father at work in Jesus!”

(continued in next post)

 

[Der Alte]

(Previous post continued)

[size=-1]Where in the bible did Jesus ever say, "Look for a nonliteral interpretation to this"? When Jesus said "except ye eat my flesh and drink my blood ye have no life in you”, he didn't say, "Look for a non literal interpretation of this. In fact he didn’t even explain it even when people abandoned him for the saying. If Jesus had of explained what he meant by that statement no doubt they wouldn’t have left him. I believe Jesus wanted them to believe in him even when they didn't understand what he meant. As his disciples did, "to whom shall we go, only you have the words of life".[/size]

“Neener, neener, neener, you are one too-oo.” Have you ever tried reading the Bible, I don’t mean just your handful of out-of-context proof texts? Example, where was Jesus’ literal body/flesh and blood when he said, “this is my body,” “this is my blood?” Did the disciples see, and understand, the wine and bread literally changing into Jesus’ body and blood or did they see Jesus holding a symbol, a representation?

Matt 26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. (see also, Mk 14:22, Lk 22:19)​

[size=-1]One doesn't define a doctrine but what others think. One should not define trinity by what oneness, Unitarians, Jehovah’s Witness, or Mormons believe. Something like a third of the space in his definition of trinity was taken up with the diagram showing how trinity isn’t what others believe.[/size]

Should you become a noted Bible scholar, then you get to decide how to write definitions. Look in a dictionary or thesaurus, many entries include antonyms. Describing what something means by contrasting/comparing it to what it does not mean.

[size=-1]So do you believe Jesus is the Father? Or what? Jesus is the father would be the obvious straightforward interpretation. How do you twist it from that obvious meaning?[/size]

I have posted several definitions of the scriptural Trinity, you chose to nitpick one, ignore the rest, and you couldn’t even understand that one. Do any of those definitions say that Jesus is the Father? In fact, White specifically said the Son is not the Father. Go back and read my post, I listed some scriptures that might help you understand, e.g. 2 Cor 4:4, Col 1:15 Heb 1:3.

Here is a verse for you to ponder, you ignored it before. When did anyone see both Jesus and the father? Note, the verb “seen,” it occurs only once. Is the single word “seen,” literal when it refers to Jesus and figurative, etc. when it refers to the father?

John 15:24 If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both [size=+1]seen[/size] and hated [size=+1]both me and my Father[/size].

John 14:7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.

John 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?​

[size=-1]All of this discussion we are having is kinda piqayune because it evades the central point. That being, Dr. white with his elaborate deceptive definition of trinity hasn't demonstrated at all a premise statement of his that 3 beings are in one being is a false conclusion. He has actually only proven it. God is a being and a person is a being only proves the illogic of trinity, namely that 3 beings are one being. that is why I feel Dr. white had to resort to a murky explanation to hide the fact he was merely proving what his definition was suppose to disprove. there's no way he could deny that 3 beings are one being is t he resultant meaning of trinity if he had been lucid in his description of trinity.[/size]

Dr. White’s definition was lucid and was neither deceptive nor murky, I understood it completely, first reading! But, unlike you, when I read the second sentence, I don’t ignore/forget what the first sentence said, and when I read the second paragraph, I don’t ignore/forget what the first paragraph said, and so on. And I also don’t reject the technical definitions of words, substituting my own meaning, trying to make White’s definition say what it does not say.

“[size=-1]3 beings are one being.” “3 beings are one being.” “3 beings are one being.”[/size] You have massive cognitive dissonance, no matter how many times something is explained to you, if it contradicts your assumptions and presuppositions, you simply cannot see or understand it.

[size=-1]A being either has a personality or doesn’t. If a being doesn't have a personality then it is not a person. If a being has a personality then it is a person. Correct? Isn’t that what Dr. white is saying? So that means God is a being cause he has a personality. And a person of God is a being because a person of God has a personality. Only proves the statement he claimed was false is true, namely that 3 beings are in one being.[/size]

Blah, blah, blah, you cannot or will not read and understand a simple dictionary definition, even when it is explained to you. You ignore Bible language lexicons and other resources. You omit words, change words, in the Bible and what I and others have written. And you continue to twist Dr. White’s words, trying desperately to make them say what you want.

I saw one post where you were speculating the verb tense of John 1:18, presuming to lecture me on the meaning of “No man has seen God.” Note, this verse is at the very beginning of Jesus’ ministry, John 14 and 15 were written about three years later, very near the end of Jesus’ ministry. Here is John 1:18 with all the verbs parsed.

John 1:18 &#952;&#949;&#959;&#957; G2316 N-ASM &#959;&#965;&#948;&#949;&#953;&#962; G3762 A-NSM &#949;&#969;&#961;&#945;&#954;&#949;&#957; G3708 G5758 V-RAI-3S-ATT &#960;&#969;&#960;&#959;&#964;&#949; G4455 ADV &#959; G3588 T-NSM &#956;&#959;&#957;&#959;&#947;&#949;&#957;&#951;&#962; G3439 A-NSM &#965;&#953;&#959;&#962; G5207 N-NSM &#959; G3588 T-NSM &#969;&#957; G5607 G5752 V-PXP-NSM &#949;&#953;&#962; G1519 PREP &#964;&#959;&#957; G3588 T-ASM &#954;&#959;&#955;&#960;&#959;&#957; G2859 N-ASM &#964;&#959;&#965; G3588 T-GSM &#960;&#945;&#964;&#961;&#959;&#962; G3962 N-GSM &#949;&#954;&#949;&#953;&#957;&#959;&#962; G1565 D-NSM &#949;&#958;&#951;&#947;&#951;&#963;&#945;&#964;&#959; G1834 G5662 V-ADI-3S​

The word translated “has seen,” is the third word, [size=+1]&#949;&#969;&#961;&#945;&#954;&#949;&#957;[/size], it is in the perfect, active, indicative, 3d person, singular, Attic Greek form.

Perfect, of, relating to, or constituting a verb form or verbal that expresses an action or state completed at the time of speaking or at a time spoken of.

in·dic·a·tive, of, relating to, or constituting a verb form or set of verb forms that represents the denoted act or state as an objective fact (the indicative mood>​

Before Jesus began his active ministry, John said, “no man has seen God.” Three years later after he had traveled throughout Samaria, Judah, and Galilee, healing the sick, raising the dead, etc. Jesus, himself, said, “he that hath seen me hath seen the Father.” No contradiction, no problem.

Earlier, I posted a part of a long Trinity discussion with an interesting illustration in reality. It was a block, depending which you side you see, that appears to be the letter B, G, or E. One block, three letters. Is the block the letter “E”? Yes, but it is not just the letter “E” it is more than that. Can you separate the letter “E” from the block? No. When you see the letter “E” you see the block, when you see the block you see the letter “E,” and/or the other two letters.

[c]

[/c]

Several years ago when my sons were small I helped them set up a mini haunted house, in our garage, for Halloween. Using a glass panel from a storm door and a plastic model skull, by adjusting light levels, it would appear to a person looking at their reflection in the glass that their head changed into a skull, and back. With the light adjusted just right a person could see both their own reflection and the skull, at the same time. Look at their own face, see the skull, look at the skull, see their own face. But that’s impossible isn’t it?

In recent times there was a phenomena, a piece of paper covered with, what appeared to be, a meaningless random pattern, but look at the pattern in a certain way, a 3D picture appears. Look at the seemingly random pattern, see a picture, look at the picture see a seemingly random pattern. Now tell me again that it is impossible to look at Jesus and see God?

John 15:24 If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both [size=+1]seen[/size] and hated [size=+1]both me and my Father[/size].

John 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?​

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1] Greetings Der Alter:

I have here what I feel is a concise summation of Dr. whites def. showing how it is nonsensical. Hopefully this makes things clearer. If my conclusions or anything here is wrong I gladly await your pointing it out.

. . .meaningless bloviation omitted. . .

. . .pointless repetition omitted . . .

. . . more futile repetition omitted . . . .

. . . twisted explanations omitted . . .

. . . out-of-context summary omitted . . .

Ok now he is saying something else he is saying God is a what. He just got through saying God was a what and a who, (#4. god is a personal being, i.e. personal existance .). Now he is also saying a person of god is a who but not a what.[/SIZE] [Blatantly false statement, he said no such thing] [SIZE=-1]That does not compute. See a what is not a personal being so sometimes he says god is a personal being other times he says hes a what or not a personal being.[/SIZE] [Blatantly false statement, he said no such thing] [SIZE=-1]You sure this guy is a doctor?

First he establishes that a being is a what or a what and a who, then he establishes that a person is always a what and a who. Then he concludes that a person of god is a who but not a what.[/SIZE] [Blatantly false statement, he said no such thing] [SIZE=-1]And god a being is a who only but not a what which isn’t part of his definition of a being (what and a who or a what only, a who only wasn’t listed as a definition of a being.)[/SIZE] [Blatantly false statement, he said no such thing]

[SIZE=-1]The good dr. makes no sense[/SIZE]. [We’ll see who makes no sense]

[SIZE=-1]His conclusion should have been, if he was going to say something that makes sense. God is a being, a what being. A person is always a what and a who being therefore god is a what like a rock or a cat or a dog but a person of god is a what and a who having personality. Which is dumb to the max.[/SIZE] [There is definitely dumb to the max here but it ain’t Dr. White]

[SIZE=-1]At any rate all he has proved is that god and a person of god are both beings but different kind of beings.[/SIZE] [Blatantly false statement, he said nor proved no such thing] [SIZE=-1]Therefore he hasn’t disproved the logical conclusion to triinty namely that 3 beings (what and who beings) are one being (a what being).[/SIZE] [Wanna bet?]

[SIZE=-1]It would be a contradiction, obviously, to say that there are three beings within one being, or three persons within one person. ", which he stated at the beginning of his definition, is correct. He has established that a person is a being and god is a being, just different kinds of beings. He needs to establish that either a person of god isn't a being or that God isn't a being to disprove the above quote. Can't be done.[/SIZE]

Did you mean to say, “a man, a human, is a being and god is a being, just different kinds of beings?” If not this is another blatantly false statement.

[SIZE=-1]Also as an addendum, Dr. white didn't define trinity in this document he merely tried in vain to prove 3 beings are one being is not the definition of trinity. He calls it a definition but it really is an attempt to prove that the three persons of the trinity that m ake up one god aren't 3 beings that are one being. Which he only proved is true, namely that 3 beings are one being is the unavoidable conclusion of the definition of trinity.[/SIZE]

You could not even read and understand one simple dictionary definition, I posted, without being led by the hand and having several things carefully explained to you. Things you should have learned in middle school. You are not qualified to say what is and is not a definition.

Now that you have had your little rant, deliberately garbling, mangling, twisting, misquoting, and mistating what Dr. White wrote. Here is a correct summary of Dr. White's conclusion.

Note, NONE as in ZERO of the blatantly false statements, highlighted above, appear in what Dr White wrote.

[c]A Brief Definition of the Trinity
by James White[/c]

It is necessary here to distinguish between the terms "being" and "person." It would be a contradiction, obviously, to say that there are three beings within one being, or three persons within one person. So what is the difference? We clearly recognize the difference between being and person every day. We recognize what something is, yet we also recognize individuals within a classification. For example, we speak of the "being" of man---human being. A rock has "being" . . .etc. . . .Yet, we also know that there are personal attributes as well. That is, we recognize both "what" and "who" when we talk about a person​

Note, NOT "a" what and "a" who. I am "a (only one) what," a man, a human being, I am "a (only one) who," Der Alter. First sentence below, "personal being" not "person."

White:
The Bible tells us there are three classifications of personal beings---God, man, and angels. What is personality? The ability to have emotion, will, to express oneself. . . . Hence, we are saying that there is one eternal, infinite being of God, shared fully and completely by three persons, Father, Son and Spirit. One what, three who's.​

God is not a man, with the restrictions and limitations man has. God is one being, God; God is a person, the Father, and a person, the Son, and a person, the Holy Spirit.

God is one being, the person of the Father is not a separate "being." The person of the Son,is not a separate "being." The person of the Holy Spirit is not a separate "being."
[bible]Isaiah 55:9[/bible]

 

[2ducklow]

2Duck, your post is so chopped up, run together, and garbled I can barely read it.

It was the best I could come up with. If I tried longer I could probably make it clearer. It was certainly more organized than what Dr. White said.

What, exactly, is not included in the definition I posted?

Some dictionaries define person as one of the 3 persons of God in the trinity; your definition of person did not include that definition. That’s all I was saying.

Virtually every time I said, “I don’t care what you think or say,” you had ignored or blown off a source I quoted, substituting what you think or say for those sources, such as dictionaries, etc., just as you have done here. Are you going to listen to me if I say, “[I don’t care what the dictionary says,] I think/say this word means . . . .?” I don’t think so, in fact, you won’t even accept dictionary definitions, so end of discussion.

We have a difference in our opinions of dictionary definitions. I do not believe dictionary definitions are always correct. I believe they are overwhelming correct but at times I believe they miss the mark slightly (as in the definition of being you quoted) and sometimes greatly. I don’t look at dictionary definitions as the absolute that you apparently do. I don’t believe everything I read in anything I read except the bible.

I was merely questioning whether one should consider a rock as a being. I was unaware until this conversation that anyone referred to a rock as a being.

See my reply immediately above. I’m quite sure you will find the word “being” used a lot in non-Biblical technical or scholastic writings in its non-personal sense.

That’s what I suspected basically. I don’t read scholastic writings or non-biblical technical works very much.

“Neener, neener, neener, you are one too-oo.” No, they don’t! If they did you would not change the literal, specific, words of Jesus, “

He who hath seen me has seen the father,” to say, in your mind, "in tune with the Father," "like seeing the father,” “you don’t literally see the father,” and “you see the attributes of the father at work in Jesus!”

You asserted that

If Jesus had intended for us to look for a non-literal interpretation, he would have told us.

I asserted that no where in the bible did Jesus ever tell us to look for a non-literal interpetation..

I have posted several definitions of the scriptural Trinity, you chose to nitpick one, ignore the rest, and you couldn’t even understand that one. Do any of those definitions say that Jesus is the Father? In fact, White specifically said the Son is not the Father. Go back and read my post, I listed some scriptures that might help you understand, e.g. 2 Cor 4:4, Col 1:15 Heb 1:3.

Jesus is the Father would be the straight forward literal interpretation of “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father”. Any other interpretation would be non literal. We have different non literal interpretations, apparently yours is so complicated that you can’t express it in a word or sentence but need several web sites to explain it. My explanation is quite simple. When you see Jesus you see God the Father because the words that Jesus spake weren’t his own they were his fathers, Jesus doctrine wasn’t his own it was his Fathers, the works that Jesus did were not his own but his fathers, if one receives Jesus they are really receiving God not Jesus (mark 9:37) whatever Jesus saw the father doing he did, and if one believes in Jesus they don’t really believe in Jesus but rather are believing in his Father (john 12:44). This is why if one sees Jesus one sees the Father. And this is the non literal interpretation that I give to John 14:9..


John 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? KJV

 

[2ducklow]

. .meaningless bloviation omitted. . .

. . .pointless repetition omitted . . .

. . . more futile repetition omitted . . . .

. . . twisted explanations omitted . . .

. . . out-of-context summary omitted . . .

It is not my analysis of Dr. Whites def. That is nonsense it is his explanations.

It would be a contradiction, obviously, to say that there are three beings within one being, or three persons within one person. So what is the difference?

……. the difference between being and person…….

what something is, yet we also recognize individuals within a classification.

What classification? The classification of being? Or of person?

we speak of the "being" of man---human being. A rock has "being"---the being of a rock, as does a cat, a dog, etc. Yet, we also know that there are personal attributes as well. That is, we recognize both "what" and "who" when we talk about a person.

I really had to think hard about this to understand what he is saying. He is saying that a human being is a person . A human being has personal attributes and has existence (he is using being here in the sense of existence when refering to a rock but he is using being in the personal existance definiton of being when he is refering to man being a being.) This is what caused a great amount of confusion for me. He is using the different definitions of being. He is saying that a rock (I will leave cats and dogs out because they confuse the issue for me) is a being in the sense of it exists. a human being in the sense that it exists and has personal attributes. so if something that exists has personal attributes it is both a person and a personal attributes being, not a existance only being. Very hard to untangle the doctors web here.

So he has merely called both rocks and humans beings but uses different definitions of beings for each one. Thus far he hasn’t explained the difference between being and person. See he calls man both a being and a person. But he calls a rock only a being.

The Bible tells us there are three classifications of personal beings---God, man, and angels

Personal beings = the personal existence definiton of being. So a man has personal existence, whereas a rock has just existence.

Hence, we are saying that there is one eternal, infinite being of God,

Since he classifys God as a personal being I assume he means here that he is using being in the Personal existence definition of being.

.

shared fully and completely by three persons, Father, Son and Spirit.

Now he is saying that the three persons of god are personal existence definition of being beings.





so now he is saying that a what is the one personal existence definition of being and three whos are the personal existence definition of being. How does this explain How 3 beings do not share one being? He has stated that a person is a being (personal existence definition of being,) and god is a being (personal existence definition of being).

As I showed before, hopefully this is clearer and more organized, doing my best here.



.

One what, three who's.

this contradicts all he has said before. He is calling God a what and he has said that a what is like a rock and that it has no personality. By this statement he is saying that God is a existence only definition of being. And then he is saying something he hasn’t established before. Namely that a person is a who only. Person previously he has stated is a what and a who. I.e. a being that has existence and personality. Now he is saying that persons of god are just personalitys.




Let me make it very clear and concise so you don’t have to wade through my analysis above.. The Dr. has pointed out the difference between a being who is and existence only being and a being who is a personal being. All of which doesn’t disprove that 3 beings (personal existence beings) are one being (personal existence being). When I or anyone claims that 3 beings are one being is the meaning of trinity; we do not mean 3 personal existence beings are one existence only being. And I do not think that Trinitarians would classify a person of God, or God in the same category as a rock, i.e. an existence only being.

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]It is not my analysis of Dr. Whites def. That is nonsense it is his explanations.

What classification? The classification of being? Or of person?[/size]

* * *
[Start DA's comments]All the meaningless empty twisted nonsense left out. I only left enough to show which post I am responding to.[End DA's comments]
* * *
And I do not think that Trinitarians would classify a person of God, or God in the same category as a rock, i.e. an existence only being.

I am done talking to this brick wall. No matter how many times something is explained to you, you evidently have a mental block, you simply cannot understand plain English. You read definitions and explanations, ignore what was said and immediately make up some garbage and distort it.

Although I have posted several definitions you seem unable to read one and quote it correctly without twisting it to mean what you want it to. It does not matter one tiny little bit what you think about dictionaries, when someone, like Dr. White did, states what meaning he attaches to a certain word, that is what he means NOT what you think the word means. And I will quote you as the authority on that.

In an earlier post you used a word "piqayune," with a "q." I corrected you, it is "picayune", with a"c" not a "q". Didn't matter, in a later post you spelled it "piqayune," with a "q," again. If you can spell words any way you want to, then Dr. White can use words the way he wants to. He explained what he meant by "being" and "person," no amount of meaningless garbage, ranting and raving, by you, can change what he meant.

Read my last sentence, in my previous post, that is what Dr White, said, that is what he meant, that is what I understood. You don't like it? Tough! You want to rant and rave and spew out meaningless garbage, you are talking to yourself.

 

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

Ah, you guys married or something?

 

[Tinker Grey]

If they are, they haven't taken any of the "fight nice" seminars.

 

[2ducklow]

I am done talking to this brick wall. No matter how many times something is explained to you, you evidently have a mental block, you simply cannot understand plain English. You read definitions and explanations, ignore what was said and immediately make up some garbage and distort it.

Although I have posted several definitions you seem unable to read one and quote it correctly without twisting it to mean what you want it to. It does not matter one tiny little bit what you think about dictionaries, when someone, like Dr. White did, states what meaning he attaches to a certain word, that is what he means NOT what you think the word means. And I will quote you as the authority on that.

In an earlier post you used a word "piqayune," with a "q." I corrected you, it is "picayune", with a"c" not a "q". Didn't matter, in a later post you spelled it "piqayune," with a "q," again. If you can spell words any way you want to, then Dr. White can use words the way he wants to. He explained what he meant by "being" and "person," no amount of meaningless garbage, ranting and raving, by you, can change what he meant.

Read my last sentence, in my previous post, that is what Dr White, said, that is what he meant, that is what I understood. You don't like it? Tough! You want to rant and rave and spew out meaningless garbage, you are talking to yourself.

saying merely that it is meaningless garbage doesn't prove it is meaningless garbage. you have focused on ancillary points such as whether a rock is a being or not, or my misspelling of words, but refuse my last two attempts to deal with the meat of the matter, namely that his what and who anallysis is totall illogical, except to dismiss it out right with curt comments such as "garbage". If Dr. Whites proof that trinity doesn't mean that 3 beings are in one being is so clear why don't you show it instead of labouring over ancillary points such as whether a rock is a being? No DEr Alter you are clearly afraid to examine the illogic of Dr. whites proof that he calls a definition.. All you have done is ridicule me about picayune topics and cleverly thereby ignored the illogic of his what and who arguments.

Also you have falsely ascribed something you said to me that I didn't say. I am sure you probably didn't do it intentionaly but it appears that your comment you inserted in a quote of something I said is something I said. I try not to make comments like the one you made that appears in your post to be my comment .

"All the meaningless empty twisted garbage left out. I only left enough to show which post I am responding to."

you said that not me.


I haven't called anything you said garbage or emesis (vomit), which you frequently have mine, and do not want it to appear that I have by your inserting your comments about garbage in a quote of mine. You should make it clear that that comment is yours not mine.

 

[2ducklow]

If they are, they haven't taken any of the "fight nice" seminars.

I have laboured as much as I can to be civil and nice in my responses. Probably I haven't always succeeded. But I feel it is unfair to label my posts as not being nice. show me something I said that wasn't nice. I think it unfair to label my responses as not being nice. Even if you can find one or two comments i made that aren't nice that would not be enough to label my posts as not being nice, especially since i have laboured under heavy unniceities from my opponent. The worst thing I can think of that I said was the Dr. Whites analysis is nonsense, but I clearly showed how it didn't make sense, and when something doesn't make sense it is nonsense. calling something nonsense can be a slur or not in this case its not a slur. I certainly haven't felt hostile to my oppoonent. Of course one can read emotions into the written word that aren't there in the writter. I know you didn't want a detailed analysis of your short comment but i felt unjustly accused by you of being uncivil or not being nice. Hence the reason for this response.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I agree that some have been nicer than others. I didn't really want to single any one person out.

 

[2ducklow]

I agree that some have been nicer than others. I didn't really want to single any one person out.

Nicer?, Perhaps you could show me something I said that wasn't nice? If your going to accuse me of saying things that aren't nice at least point out something I said that wasn't nice. . would you like me to accuse you in the veild manner you did me of something you didn't do?

"

If they are, they haven't taken any of the "fight nice" seminars."

You singled out me and my oponnent and accused me of saying things not nice. you guys were talking about us not people in cf in genreal. So you did single me out and falsely accuse me of saying things not nice.
I take great care not to say unnice things and be polite. I edit my posts looking for polite ways of saying things and frequently erase things i have said for the purpose of making the comment less abrasive. Plus I have the holy spirit in me correcting me when I blurt out something not exactly polite, and He corrects me in this manner as well. It is really unfair to accuse people of not being nice when they have gone the extra mile in an effort to be nice.

 

[buddy mack]

Nicer?, Perhaps you could show me something I said that wasn't nice? If your going to accuse me of saying things that aren't nice at least point out something I said that wasn't nice. . would you like me to accuse you in the veild manner you did me of something you didn't do?

"
If they are, they haven't taken any of the "fight nice" seminars."

You singled out me and my oponnent and accused me of saying things not nice. you guys were talking about us not people in cf in genreal. So you did single me out and falsely accuse me of saying things not nice.

sticks and stone may break your bones but words can never hurt you. i just made that up