Trinity question

[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.

I explained how Dr. Whites def. makes no sense in great detail. your response is that I am a brick wall, I have a mental block, I can't understand english, I make up garbage, I distort definitions, I can't read your definitions, i can't quote it corretly, I don't care what dictionarys say,I misspelled picayune, my comments are meaningless garbage, I rant and rave, I spew out meaningless garbage, I talk to my self. All of which does nothing to show how my comments weren't on the mark.


The explanations that you gave as to what Dr. white said were helpfull to me but they weren't the f ull analysis that I made but merely elucidations of certain sentences of his that were unclear to me. You didn't paint the complete picture of what he was saying, as I did. For to do so would expose the illogic of his so called definition. Were you to explain what he meant and anaylise it you would find it makes no sense. I had a number of things I said about different specific things he said, that show clearly how illogical he was being. if my comments were the garbage you say they are then surely you could demonstrate how at least one of the many statements I made is garbage. You haven't proven me wrong, the above statements you made do not prove that I am wrong.
. .those statements, and the many similar ones you made in our discourse merely proves that you have a low opinion of me . they do not prove anything other than your low opinion of me and my comments.

 

[Tinker Grey]

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.

I apologize.

FTR, I noticed how well you (and I think someone else) have handled the invective directed towards you. I admire it when someone keeps a calm tone in the face of vitriol.

The last thing I want to do is impugn someone who has, in fact, behaved honorably.

In an effort to avoid naming another, I hurt you.

I'm sorry.

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]I really had to think hard about this to understand what he is saying. He is saying that a human being is a person.[/SIZE] [So far so good. DA.] [SIZE=-1]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.)[/SIZE] [As I have said repeatedly you do NOT read! "Personal existence," is NOT part of the definition of "being."]

[SIZE=-1]This is what caused a great amount of confusion for me. He is using the different definitions of being[/SIZE]. [You are confused because you do NOT read! White is not using different derfinitions, you are, and the wrong ones!] [SIZE=-1]He is saying that a rock (I will leave cats and dogs out because they confuse the issue for me)[/SIZE] [Not if you read!] [SIZE=-1]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[n] existance only being[/size]. [Where does white say "both a person and a 'personal attributes being'"?] [SIZE=-1]Very hard to untangle the doctors web here.[/size] [Nothing to untangle, you think that because you do NOT read and you are deliberately adding your own ideas to what White said.]

[SIZE=-1]So he has merely called both rocks and humans beings but uses different definitions of beings for each one.[/size] [No he does NOT, you do NOT read! "Personal existence" is part of the definition of "personality," NOT "being."] [SIZE=-1]Thus far he hasn’t explained the difference between being and person.[/size] [He certainly did, but he shouldn't have to, that's why they make dictionaries, so ppl, like you, can look up definitions.] [SIZE=-1]See he calls man both a being and a person. But he calls a rock only a being[/SIZE]. [And your point is? Do you think a rock is a person? Do you think a person is not a being? How many rocks do you know with personal attributes, a will, emotions, sentience, ability to communicate, etc.? Do you think that rocks or persons don't exist?]

Let me apply your logic to you, yourself. You exist, therefore you are a "being", def. 1. and according to you, you are also a "personal attributes being." (Altho that is not part of the definition of being) Therefore you, according to your own logic, are two beings. Right?

I see we have some new ppl in the thread. Would any of you gentlemen, care to address the thread topic or just take potshots at other members? What do you call a person who does the same thing he criticizes someone else for?

 

[Der Alte]

Duck, one problem I have observed, you do not read much of anything exactly as it is written, apparently much the same way you read the Bible. You break up paragraphs, and sentences, omit words, add words, substitute your own meanings, and mix parts of sentences with parts of different sentences. Here is the core of Dr. White’s definition.

Don’t do anything but read. Don’t change anything around or add your own meanings. I have added links, in red, to word definitions you appear not to understand. When you encounter one of those red words click on the word, then slowly, and carefully read the definition until you are certain you fully understand it, then click back. I have also highlighted the relevant senses and sub-senses of the words. The other senses are not relevant; Dr. White indicated how he was using the words.

Then continue to read. Concentrate and try to remember what you have read, from one sentence to the next. And take particular note of the use, or absence, of definite and indefinite articles, e.g., “house,”“a house” and “the house,” do not mean precisely the same thing.

I highlighted the word “classification,” and what it refers to, since you were totally disoriented and confused before and could not understand that the sentence relates to what immediately follows.

About three hours ago I showed this definition to a recent high school graduate, she understood it completely; it was not confusing, nonsensical, or contradictory to her.

A Brief Definition of the Trinity by James White

It is necessary here to distinguish between the terms “being”[sup]1[/sup] and “person”[sup]2[/sup] 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[sup]1[/sup] and person[sup]2[/sup] 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"---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"[sup]1[/sup] and "who"[sup]2[/sup] when we talk about a person.

The Bible tells us there are three classifications of personal beings[sup]1[/sup] ---God, man, and angels. What is personality? The ability to have emotion, will, to express oneself. Rocks cannot speak. Cats cannot think of themselves over against others, and, say, work for the common good of "cat kind." Hence, we are saying that there is one eternal, infinite being[sup]1[/sup] of God, shared fully and completely by three persons[sup]2[/sup], Father, Son and Spirit. One what, three who's​

And note, the words “person,” “personal,” and “personality,” are related, but not synonymous. “Synonymous” means to have the same meaning. Read the definitions carefully.

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]I explained how Dr. Whites def. makes no sense in great detail[/SIZE]. [No I [SIZE=+1]proved[/SIZE] from the dictionary, you deliberately used the wrong definition of "being" trying to make it appear White made no sense.] [SIZE=-1]your response is that I am a brick wall, I have a mental block, I can't understand english, I make up garbage, I distort definitions, I can't read your definitions,.[/SIZE] [Gee Duck, have you ever acknowledged that the PRIMARY definition of "being" is NOT person?] [SIZE=-1]i can't quote it corretly,[/SIZE] [See previous answer] [SIZE=-1]I don't care what dictionarys say[/SIZE],

[SIZE=-1]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.

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=17751201&postcount=251
[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]I misspelled picayune,[/SIZE] [To make a point. But you missed it.] my comments are meaningless garbage, I rant and rave, I spew out meaningless garbage, I talk to my self. [Where, did I say you talk to yourself?] [SIZE=-1]All of which does nothing to show how my comments weren't on the mark[/SIZE] [I did that in several posts but you ignored most of them] [SIZE=-1]The explanations that you gave as to what Dr. white said were helpfull to me but they weren't the f ull analysis that I made but merely elucidations of certain sentences of his that were unclear to me. You didn't paint the complete picture of what he was saying, as I did.[/SIZE] [You did NOT paint a full picture of anything. It was only necessary to show your basic premise was false. "Person" and "being" are NOT synonymous as you repeatedly asserted.] [SIZE=-1]For to do so would expose the illogic of his so called definition. Were you to explain what he meant and anaylise it you would find it makes no sense.[/SIZE] [No all I had to do was prove that your basic premise was false. The rest of your argument falls apart after that.] [SIZE=-1]I had a number of things I said about different specific things he said, that show clearly how illogical he was being.[/SIZE] [You tried to make White's statments appear to be illogical by ignoring what he said, and claiming that "being" and "person" are synonymous. They are not. Everything else in your argument hinges on that.] [SIZE=-1]if my comments were the garbage you say they are then surely you could demonstrate how at least one of the many statements I made is garbage.[/SIZE] [I did, you ignored virtually everything I said and kept repeating over and over, "3 beings in 1 being."] [SIZE=-1]You haven't proven me wrong, the above statements you made do not prove that I am wrong.[/SIZE]

In this post http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=17699349&postcount=231

I showed how virtually everthing you said in this post was wrong.

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=17698140&postcount=229

You ignored the PRIMARY definition of "being" that White clearly said he meant, and erroneously tried to show that "being" always meant "person" and even said several times that White actually, literally, said, "3 beings in 1 being."

. .[SIZE=-1]those statements, and the many similar ones you made in our discourse merely proves that you have a low opinion of me . they do not prove anything other than your low opinion of me and my comments.[/SIZE]

I wonder why? Click being to see definition. You ignored the primary definitions, and quoted four minor sub-sub-senses, of being, and even after you were shown the proper definition and that White was using the word correctly you continued to say that White was actually, literally, saying "three beings in one being."

 

[hybrid]

Duck, one problem I have observed, you do not read much of anything exactly as it is written, apparently much the same way you read the Bible. You break up paragraphs, and sentences, omit words, add words, substitute your own meanings, and mix parts of sentences with parts of different sentences. Here is the core of Dr. White’s definition.

Don’t do anything but read. Don’t change anything around or add your own meanings. I have added links, in red, to word definitions you appear not to understand. When you encounter one of those red words click on the word, then slowly, and carefully read the definition until you are certain you fully understand it, then click back. I have also highlighted the relevant senses and sub-senses of the words. The other senses are not relevant; Dr. White indicated how he was using the words.

Then continue to read. Concentrate and try to remember what you have read, from one sentence to the next. And take particular note of the use, or absence, of definite and indefinite articles, e.g., “house,”“a house” and “the house,” do not mean precisely the same thing.

I highlighted the word “classification,” and what it refers to, since you were totally disoriented and confused before and could not understand that the sentence relates to what immediately follows.









About three hours ago I showed this definition to a recent high school graduate, she understood it completely; it was not confusing, nonsensical, or contradictory to her.

A Brief Definition of the Trinity by James White





It is necessary here to distinguish between the terms “being”[sup]1[/sup] and “person”[sup]2[/sup] 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[sup]1[/sup] and person[sup]2[/sup] 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"---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"[sup]1[/sup] and "who"[sup]2[/sup] when we talk about a person.

The Bible tells us there are three classifications of personal beings[sup]1[/sup] ---God, man, and angels. What is personality? The ability to have emotion, will, to express oneself. Rocks cannot speak. Cats cannot think of themselves over against others, and, say, work for the common good of "cat kind." Hence, we are saying that there is one eternal, infinite being[sup]1[/sup] of God, shared fully and completely by three persons[sup]2[/sup], Father, Son and Spirit. One what, three who's



​

And note, the words “person,” “personal,” and “personality,” are related, but not synonymous. “Synonymous” means to have the same meaning. Read the definitions carefully.

I got dr. white,




“BEING” refers to a “state” of being God, having qualities and attributes of God.

The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, these three PERSONS are in that “state” or “being” God, possessing divine qualities.

It is one thing not to understand and another thing to refuse to understand.
and to understand and accept it, or understand and reject it
and of course there are also those who can't understand but believe
and those who can't understand and reject.

 

[2ducklow]

I apologize.

FTR, I noticed how well you (and I think someone else) have handled the invective directed towards you. I admire it when someone keeps a calm tone in the face of vitriol.

The last thing I want to do is impugn someone who has, in fact, behaved honorably.

In an effort to avoid naming another, I hurt you.

I'm sorry.

Apology accept. I can relate to what you are saying. I refered to intellectuals as "pointy head intellectuals" in a post of mine once. My intention was to be humerous but It probably came across as a slur. I had refered prior to the 'Pointy head intellectual" comment, to a statement frequently said by the actor Jack webb, "Just the facts Ma'am." Well 'pointy head intellectual" was a phrase used by the polotician George Wallace frequently and is to someone who was around in the sixtys, as was Jack Webb (they were both high profile fiugres of the sixtys) a phrase associated with George
Wallace. My attempt at humor probably wasn't noticed and so I too flubbed up.,

 

[2ducklow]

A Brief Definition of the Trinity by James White




It is necessary here to distinguish between the terms “being”1 and “person”2 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 being1 and person2 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"---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"1 and "who"2 when we talk about a person.

The Bible tells us there are three classifications of personal beings1 ---God, man, and angels. What is personality? The ability to have emotion, will, to express oneself. Rocks cannot speak. Cats cannot think of themselves over against others, and, say, work for the common good of "cat kind." Hence, we are saying that there is one eternal, infinite being1 of God, shared fully and completely by three persons2, Father, Son and Spirit. One what, three who's

Which definition of being is he referring to every time he uses the word being? when non Trinitarians and Trinitarians address the 3 beings are one being interpretation of trinity we all mean being in the sense of something alive. No one, Trinitarian or non Trinitarian considers a person of God to be a being like a rock but rather a living being, something with life, and likewise, no one considers God to be a nonliving being like a rock. So which definition of being does he mean in the first instance? He apparently means all the definitions of being judging by the blue highlights of yours. So apparently person differs from being in that it does not mean everything that being means. He needs to establish how person differentiates from the ‘Life’ definition of Being for that is the meaning I use and others as well when we say trinity teaches that 3 beings are one being. This is very central. A person is a being that is alive; a person is not a being that is merely something with existence. And no one claims that a person of god is a being without life. Even if he is trying to establish that a person of god is merely a non-living being it still proves that 3 beings are one being. Just different kinds of beings.

When I say trinity teaches that 3 beings are one being, I mean 3 living beings are one living being. A person of god is a living being (assuming there is one). God is a living being not merely something that exists. So definitions of being other than ‘something with life’ are irrelevant for I do not assert that trinity teaches that either God or a person of God has no life.

One what refers to God correct? Three who’s refers to 3 persons of God correct? But this doesn’t make sense for the reason that he established that a person is a what and a who then he is teaching that a person is just the who part. No consistency here. Only confusion.

“That is, we recognize both "what"1 and "who"2 when we talk about a person.”

Dr. White.



Then at the end of the above quote he describes God as a what and persons of God as 3 whos.

"Hence, we are saying that there is one eternal, infinite being1 of God, shared fully and completely by three persons2, Father, Son and Spirit. One

what, three who's"

Dr. White with DA red highlights.

What we have is a person is a what and a who and the trinity is a what and 3 whos. That means that the trinity is a person according to what he is saying. Dr. white is not being consistent. Also that means that when we say god we are saying only the what part of the trinity according to this. It would be to ascribe half the definition of person to God and half of the definition to person of god, or ¾ depending on how you look at it (3persons, 1 god= 4 parts). This would mean that Goid is not a full person and person of god is not a ful person, only partly a person.

So Dr. White has only proven what he attempted to disprove.” 3 beings are in one being’ he has merely established that they are different kinds of beings. A person of God is a living being and God is a non living being. there seems to be some attempt here at proving that God is like a rock kind of being and person of god is like a living kind of being. which his conclustion does not support but rather goes off in a different direction by claiming in effect that the trinity is a person.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Apology accept. I can relate to what you are saying. I refered to intellectuals as "pointy head intellectuals" in a post of mine once. My intention was to be humerous but It probably came across as a slur. I had refered prior to the 'Pointy head intellectual" comment, to a statement frequently said by the actor Jack webb, "Just the facts Ma'am." Well 'pointy head intellectual" was a phrase used by the polotician George Wallace frequently and is to someone who was around in the sixtys, as was Jack Webb (they were both high profile fiugres of the sixtys) a phrase associated with George
Wallace. My attempt at humor probably wasn't noticed and so I too flubbed up.,

Thank you.

 

[2ducklow]

Let me apply your logic to you, yourself. You exist, therefore you are a "being", def. 1. and according to you, you are also a "personal attributes being." (Altho that is not part of the definition of being) Therefore you, according to your own logic, are two beings. Right?

.
I have been tossing about 2 different definitions of being.{1} one is something alive and the other definition is {2} something that merely exists. I exist but I am not a being that only has existance. When I say I am a being I do not mean that I am a being according to def. 2. It would be clearere if there were a different word for each definition. I am being1 I am not being 2. that's about as clear as I can make it.

LIkewise I say trinity teaches that 3 beings1 are 1 being1. I do not assert that trinity teaches that 3 beings1 are 1 being2, or that 3 beings2 are one being1.

also, I would like to point out here that Dr. whites claim that a rock is a being caused red flags to go up in my mind. I knew something wasn't right about that but I couldn't put my finger at it, hence the reason for my groping in the dark questions about whether a rock should be considered a being. I realize now that the problem it creates is the use of different definitions of being when I am only useing one definition of being, something alive. A rock of course is not a being1 it is a being2 so in effect it is a different word. Just like pool is the same word but means either the billiard game or a swimming pool. really different words that are spelled the same.

 

[2ducklow]

"Person" and "being" are NOT synonymous as you repeatedly asserted.

All persons are beings are they not? all beings2 are persons are they not? beings2 being the Life definition of being. I am not using every definition of being when I say being. I am using the word being in the sense of something alive so in that sense being and person are synonymous. No one can make a sentence using the word 'being' and mean by the word 'being' every definition of 'being'. I agree, that the word being is not synonymous with person when you use the word being in the sense of something that only exists and has no life. It all depends on what you mean when you say 'being' as to whether it is synonymous with person. Sometimes yes sometimes not. You are a being der alter and you are a person der alter, I have used person and being synonymously.

Gee Duck, have you ever acknowledged that the PRIMARY definition of "being" is NOT person?

The way I use it is to mean something alive and that is the primary way it is used by me and everyone I have talked to. I don't know what the dictionary considers the primary def. Whatever the primary def. is I am not using being in that sense.

. [Where, did I say you talk to yourself?]

You want to rant and rave and spew out meaningless garbage, you are talking to yourself.

Post 253 page 26.

 

[2ducklow]

I feel I have a clearer understanding of how Dr. White failed in his attempt to show that trinity does not teach that 3 beings are into one being. this should clear it up, hopefully.


Here’s the thing.

Dr. White first claims that three beings are into one being is an incorrect interpretation of Trinity, He says that is a contradiction.

Then he goes about to show the difference between the word person and the word being., giving the different meanings of the word by example, i.e. a rock , a cat, a dog, and man and I believe he included God as an example of a being. this is the fundemental flaw in his logic, to prove that '3 beings are into one being" is an incorrect interpretation of trinity, he needs to show how a person is not a living being. he did not do that or even try and do that.

The difference in the meanings of the word being does not explain how a person is not a living being, None of the examples he gave or explanations he gave show a person being anything but a living being. In order to disprove “three beings into one being”, He needs to prove or show how a person is not a being of any kind. He has shown that a rock is not a person and a rock is a nonliving being. But no one is saying that the 3 beings of the persons of the trinity are non living beings, like rocks. He hasn’t done that. If he has show me. Ok, that covers the 3 persons of God side of the equation.

Now the God side of the equation. Surely no one is going to claim that god is not a living being. Dr. White did not show how God was anything but a living being.



Since the main sticking point is about persons being beings. Show me how a person is not a being, a living being. Dr. White failed to do this. We all know a rock is not a living being, we all know that cats are not persons, all of which is irrelevant.

 

[Der Alte]

"Person" and "being" are NOT synonymous as you repeatedly asserted.​

[SIZE=-1]All persons are beings are they not? all beings2 are persons are they not? beings2 being the Life definition of being. [/SIZE]

Here is the definition of being, I’m not interested in how you use the word, what you say it means, or your own made up definition. In White's definition he clearly stated he was using the word being in the senses of 1a, 1b (1), (2), and (3), and 2. I asked you to read the “Explanatory Chart” in a dictionary. This one is real simple, the PRIMARY definition is the one listed first and if there are more than one, each definition is shown in order of importance by a bold face number. Please note the highlighted definitions. "Person" and "being" are NOT synonymous as you repeatedly asserted, and imply here.

Main Entry: 1be·ing
Pronunciation: 'bE(-i)[ng]
Function: noun
1 a : the quality or state of having existence b (1) : something conceivable as existing (2) : something that actually exists (3) : the totality of existing things c : conscious existence : LIFE
2 : the qualities that constitute an existent thing : ESSENCE; especially : PERSONALITY​

I am not using [Irrelevant] [SIZE=-1]every definition of being[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]when I say being[/SIZE] [Irrelevant] [SIZE=-1]I am using[/SIZE] [Irrelevant] [SIZE=-1]the word being in the sense of something alive so in that sense being and person are synonymous. No one can make a sentence using the word 'being' and mean by the word 'being' every definition of 'being'. I agree, that the word being is not synonymous with person when you use the word being in the sense of something that only exists and has no life.[/SIZE] [Finally! But dancing around the question.] [SIZE=-1]It all depends on what you mean[/SIZE] [Is Bill Clinton helping you write this?] when you say 'being' as to whether it is synonymous with person. Sometimes yes sometimes not [And you decide when someone else means they are/are not synonymous, despite what they say?]

Dodge ball anyone? The question is, are the words, “being” and “person,” inherently synonymous? Duck says, “It all depends on what you mean when you say 'being' as to whether it is synonymous with person." Therefore, when Dr. White clearly states we, “distinguish between the terms ‘being’ and ‘person.,’” then he clearly means “being” and “person” are NOT synonymous, in this definition!

[SIZE=-1]You are a being der alter and you are a person der alter, I have used person and being synonymously.[/SIZE] [Irrelevant]

Gee Duck, have you ever acknowledged that the PRIMARY definition of "being" is NOT person?​

[SIZE=-1]The way I use it[/SIZE] [Irrelevant] [SIZE=-1]is to mean something alive and that is the primary way it is used by me and everyone I have talked to[/SIZE]. [Irrelevant] [SIZE=-1]I don't know what the dictionary considers the primary def. [/SIZE]. [You should I told you more than once!] [SIZE=-1]Whatever the primary def. is I am not using being in that sense[/SIZE]. [Irrelevant how you use any word. How did Dr. White say he was using it? Do the words "distinguish between" ring a bell?]

I did not ask you how your use the word being or any other word. That is totally irrelevant to this discussion. So the answer is NO you adamantly refuse to acknowledge that the primary definition of the word being is not person. Read the above question again. Are you familiar with the verb, “to be,” i.e. “I am, your are, he is,” etc.? The root word for the noun “being” is the verb, “be.” What does “be” mean? Do you know what the present participle of “be” is?

Where, did I say you talk to yourself?​

You want to rant and rave and spew out meaningless garbage, you are talking to yourself.

Post 253 page 26.

That is a conditional statement, If-then.

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]I feel I have a clearer understanding of how Dr. White failed in his attempt to show that trinity does not teach that 3 beings are into one being. this should clear it up, hopefully.[/SIZE]

How can you clear anything up, when you refuse to understand the meaning of the words, "person, being, personality," and "personal? And you refuse to acknowledge that White clearly stated how the definition of Trinity relates the words "being" and "person."

[SIZE=-1]Then he goes about to show the difference between the word person and the word being., giving the different meanings of the word[/SIZE] [I assume you mean the word "being," but White does not give "different meanings."] [SIZE=-1]by example, i.e. a rock , a cat, a dog, and man and I believe he included God[/SIZE] [Wrong! You should actually read something before replying and attacking it!.] [SIZE=-1]as an example of a being. this is the fundemental flaw in his logic, to prove that '3 beings are into one being" is an incorrect interpretation of trinity, he needs to show how a person is not a living being. he did not do that or even try and do that.[/SIZE]

If an 18 y/o high school graduate can understand White's definition, then you should be able to. This is laughable. If this was your objection why didn't you post it a week ago?

Because you only came up with this ridiculous, nonsense, after your other absurd arguments were blown away, one by one.

"[SIZE=-1]this is the fundemental flaw in his logic, to prove that '3 beings are into one being" is an incorrect interpretation of trinity, he needs to show how a person is not a living being[/SIZE]." Here is the fundamental flaw in your logic. If "a person" is part of the Trinity it does not matter if it is living or not living, it would still be part of the Trinity. You do not understand the difference between, "person," "a person," and "the person."

[SIZE=-1]The difference in the meanings of the word being does not explain how a person is not a living being.[/SIZE] [There is no difference in the meaning of the word being. So no reason for a person to not be a living being.] [SIZE=-1]None of the examples he gave or explanations he gave show a person being anything but a living being. In order to disprove “three beings into one being”, He needs to prove or show how a person is not a being of any kind[/SIZE]. [Changing your argument. So which is it, that must be proved that "a person" is not a "living being" or not "a being" at all?] [SIZE=-1]He has shown that a rock is not a person and a rock is a nonliving being. But no one is saying that the 3 beings of the persons of the trinity are non living beings, like rocks. He hasn’t done that. If he has show me. Ok, that covers the 3 persons of God side of the equation.[/SIZE]

Now you have changed your argument back to "non-living" being. Which is it? And OBTW White clearly stated that the Trinity doctrine does not mean three beings in one being.

[SIZE=-1]Now the God side of the equation. Surely no one is going to claim that god is not a living being. Dr. White did not show how God was anything but a living being[/SIZE].

And your point is?

[SIZE=-1]Since the main sticking point is about persons being beings. Show me how a person is not a being, a living being. Dr. White failed to do this.[/SIZE]

You have gone from arguing about persons being "living beings" to "non-living beings", back to "living beings," and now just "beings." What exactly is your argument, which one of the three do you now think needs to be proved and why?

 

[2ducklow]

Hello Der Alter'

A Brief Definition of the Trinity by James White




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"---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.

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. Rocks cannot speak. Cats cannot think of themselves over against others, and, say, work for the common good of "cat kind." 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

I really understand what he is saying now, finally. Before I was commenting on Dr. Whites statements above without understanding what he was saying in total. permit me to explain what he means above as I see it.

there are 2 classifications, person and being that we are dealing with here in the statement "3 beings into one being" or '3 persons into one person". the classification of personal being has 3 memebers god, angels and man.
within the classification of person there are persons who have personal attributes (presumably there are no persons who have no personal attributes for he lists only personal attribute what and whos in the calssification of person.) the what and whos. See he is saying what and whos have personal attributes.what doesn't refer to beings but to persons for he doesnt say 'what' and 'who' when we talk about a person or a being.

"That is, we recognize both "what" and "who" when we talk about a person." JW
So so far we have 2 classifications, beings that are man angels and god called beings. and persons (all of whom have personal attributes), in which are what and whos.

so far he has established that the difference between person and being is that beings are personal and not personal. god man and angels are personal beings. Cats dogs and rocks are beings but not personal beings. whereas persons are whats and whos and have personality. In other words, beings may or may not be personal beings whereas persons always have personal attributes. this I feel is his stated difference between person and being.

Ok then he concludes that one god is a what part of a personal person and the three persons of God are 3 who's of the personal person.

So he hasn't proven that a person of God is not a being. He seemed to be trying to show, without acutally doing it, that a person of god is not a being because it is like a rock and a rock is not a personal being. Meaning a person isn't a personal being and therefore trinity doesn't mean that 3 (PERSONAL BEINGS) are one (personal being). But he didn't do that. I think he realized that he was showing that 3 (non personal beings like rocks) are one personal being. He merely laid the ground work for that conclusion but shifted gears midstream probably because he realized that he was proving 3 beings are one being just different kinds of beings and went in another direction. that direction he changed course to is;

"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." JW

one being shared by 3 persons the one being being a what, and the 3 persons being 3 whos. so that means god isn't a full person but merely part of a person, and person of god isn't a full person but the who part of a person.
So according to Dr. Whites conclusion God isn't even a full person he is only the what part of a person, and according to Dr. Whites conclusion a person of god is not a full person but only the who part of his definition of person (the what and who definition isolated by me above.)
Hey he said it not me. According to Dr. White God is not a full person.so really that would mean everytime we pray to god we aren't praying to anyone. in order to pray to one person we whould have to pray to God and the three presons of god in order to really be praying to someone. when we pray to God we are really like praying to a "what", not a full person, or i guess he means something like a rock or a cat. Praying to God according to this conclusion of Dr. whites would be like me talking to your physical body and not you, (presumably the who is the personal attribute part of a being, I'm not sure he didn't clarify what a what is in a person and what a who is in a person.

all of which does not show how a person is not a being and therefore doesn't show how 3 persons of god are not beings and therefore he hasn't shown how "3 beings are into one being' is an invalid interpretation of trinity. Dr. white gets an F on this paper.

 

[A New Dawn]

Your conclusion makes absolutely no sense, 2ducklow.

 

[2ducklow]

"Person" and "being" are NOT synonymous as you repeatedly asserted.​

A person is a being is it not? Are any persons not beings? Would you be so kind as to name a person that is not a being?


​

Here is the definition of being, I’m not interested in how you use the word, what you say it means, or your own made up definition. In White's definition he clearly stated he was using the word being in the senses of 1a, 1b (1), (2), and (3), and 2. I asked you to read the “Explanatory Chart” in a dictionary. This one is real simple, the PRIMARY definition is the one listed first and if there are more than one, each definition is shown in order of importance by a bold face number. Please note the highlighted definitions. "Person" and "being" are NOT synonymous as you repeatedly asserted, and imply here.

Main Entry: 1be·ing



Pronunciation: 'bE(-i)[ng]
Function: noun
1 a : the quality or state of having existence b (1) : something conceivable as existing (2) : something that actually exists (3) : the totality of existing things c : conscious existence : LIFE


2 : the qualities that constitute an existent thing : ESSENCE; especially : PERSONALITY​

Mute point, The real issue is whether a person is always a being. And if not what persons are not beings.


​

Dodge ball anyone? The question is, are the words, “being” and “person,” inherently synonymous? Duck says, “It all depends on what you mean when you say 'being' as to whether it is synonymous with person." Therefore, when Dr. White clearly states we, “distinguish between the terms ‘being’ and ‘person.,’” then he clearly means “being” and “person” are NOT synonymous, in this definition!

Mute point, sorry for leading you astray here. We need to focus on whether a person is always a being or not, It is the central point to which
dr. White or anyone of us so far have not addressed.
Upon more carefull consideration I accept that person and being are not synonyms. I suppose one could say that person and being are used interchangeably at times would be more accurate than to say they are synonyms. I

Gee Duck, have you ever acknowledged that the PRIMARY definition of "being" is NOT person?​

Not rellevant. what is relevant is whether a person is always a being. I acknowledge that a being is not always a person. No one is claiming that a being is always a person. A cat is a being but not a person. I know of no person, however; that is not a being.



​

I did not ask you how your use the word being or any other word. That is totally irrelevant to this discussion. So the answer is NO you adamantly refuse to acknowledge that the primary definition of the word being is not person. Read the above question again. Are you familiar with the verb, “to be,” i.e. “I am, your are, he is,” etc.? The root word for the noun “being” is the verb, “be.” What does “be” mean? Do you know what the present participle of “be” is?

Ok, the primary definition of being is something that exists, (my paraphrase) you are right. . I would argue however that the primary way being is used in everyday conversation, which is where i was comeing from, is something that exists and has life.

Where, did I say you talk to yourself?

That is a conditional statement, If-then.

Ok.

 

[2ducklow]

Your conclusion makes absolutely no sense, 2ducklow.

"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."

Is the one what refering to one eternal infinite being of God? is the 'three who's' refering to 3 persons of god?

Is dr. white saying that a person is a what and a who in this statement of his

"we recognize both "what" and "who" when we talk about a person."JW


This means that the trinity (one eternal, infinite being of God, shared fully and completely by three persons or one what and three whos) is a person. It means that god is not a full person only the what part of a person.
In otherwords when we talk about a person we recognise the what and who but when we talk about God we recognise only the what. Accordingly neither person of God nor God are full persons all of them together make up one person. god is not a person nor are persons of god a person according to this what who example of Dr. whites.
It is true that this makes no sense. It is rather hard to understand how an educated theologian could make these statements. I can only conclude that he didn't proof read his article or that he didn't fully understand what he was saying.

 

[A New Dawn]

Is the one what refering to one eternal infinite being of God? is the 'three who's' refering to 3 persons of god?

Is dr. white saying that a person is a what and a who in this statement of his

"we recognize both "what" and "who" when we talk about a person."JW


This means that the trinity (one eternal, infinite being of God, shared fully and completely by three persons or one what and three whos) is a person. It means that god is not a full person only the what part of a person.
In otherwords when we talk about a person we recognise the what and who but when we talk about God we recognise only the what. Accordingly neither person of God nor God are full persons all of them together make up one person. god is not a person nor are persons of god a person according to this what who example of Dr. whites.
It is true that this makes no sense. It is rather hard to understand how an educated theologian could make these statements. I can only conclude that he didn't proof read his article or that he didn't fully understand what he was saying.

I hate to say it, but your clarification of your conclusion did not make sense either.

I did, however, understand what Dr. White wrote.

 

[2ducklow]

How can you clear anything up, when you refuse to understand the meaning of the words, "person, being, personality," and "personal? And you refuse to acknowledge that White clearly stated how the definition of Trinity relates the words "being" and "person."

I see no clear explanation of how being and person relates to trinity. only confusion.

If an 18 y/o high school graduate can understand White's definition, then you should be able to. This is laughable. If this was your objection why didn't you post it a week ago?

I haven't seen any explanation of what Dr. white said either by you or your 18 y/o graduate. I have seen explanations of what dr. white said but they don't relate to anything Dr. white has said as far as I can determine. only assertions that it makes sense and tearing down of my explanations. You haven't explained what he meant, and I don't really feel anyone can explain what he meant because I don't even think he knew what he meant.

Because you only came up with this ridiculous, nonsense, after your other absurd arguments were blown away, one by one.

Dr. whites so called def. of trinity was to me at the very beginning a jumbled up mess that was totally nonsensical . I only gradualy began to descipher it. I feel now that I understand what he was saying and can no be more to the point. 3 persons in one god' I interpet to mean 3 beings are one being. therefore the central point is whether a person of god is a being. Since we all believe God is a being (I presume). Sometimes it takes a while for me to collect my thoughts and get everything organised especially when I am dealing with a jumbled up mess of a paper like Dr. Whites. So it took me a while to determine what the central issue was.

"[size=-1]this is the fundemental flaw in his logic, to prove that '3 beings are into one being" is an incorrect interpretation of trinity, he needs to show how a person is not a living being[/size]." Here is the fundamental flaw in your logic. If "a person" is part of the Trinity it does not matter if it is living or not living, it would still be part of the Trinity. You do not understand the difference between, "person," "a person," and "the person."

Ok really I agree with you that it doesn't matter whether a person of god is living or non living being because either way it is still a being.
and either way you still have "3 beings into are into one being" which proves that statement to be correct.
a is indefinite article meaning only one. the is definite article. A car would not be a specific car but a car in general. the car would be some specific car. Same with person or any noun. I don't really see your point though.

Now you have changed your argument back to "non-living" being. Which is it? And OBTW White clearly stated that the Trinity doctrine does not mean three beings in one being.

My point about living being and non-living being was to show that dr. white used the term being in different senses in this sentence of his.

"For example, 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. "

man is a living being a rock is a non-living being. a rock is something that exists not something that has life. the use of the same word would be clear if it were different say 'being' meant somthing that exists, and 'livingbeing" meant something that exists and has life. but we english speakers use the same word for the two different meanings. so if dr. white had said
'for example, we speak of the livingbeing of man ---human being. A rock has 'being'--the being of a rock . A cat, a dog has 'livingbeing'.\
Example; If i say a rock is a being I do not mean it is something that exists that has life.
If on the other hand I say "John is a being" I mean john exists and has life. I would not mean that John only exists and has no life by the use of the word 'being'. in this instance. languages aren't perfect. some languages express somethings clearer and better than others.
My bringing in the term living being was an attempt to clarify the statement of Dr. whites about rocks, cats and dogs and god being 'beings'.

And your point is?



You have gone from arguing about persons being "living beings" to "non-living beings", back to "living beings," and now just "beings." What exactly is your argument, which one of the three do you now think needs to be proved and why?

As I have pointed out before, When i say 'three beings are one being" I mean three things that exist that have life (three living beings). In normal conversation I just use the word being for most people would not assume that I meant that a person of god is a non living being. So I am not trying to change anything just clarify specifically what I mean since there are more than two definitions of being. the two definitions that we are dealing with here are 1. something that exists. and 2. something that exists that has life. My paraphrase. Dr. white uses the same word differently in the same sentence which is confusing. If I say" I am a being, A rock is a being". either i mean that I am something that exists and has no life as a rock does or that I exist and have life and a rock does as well or I am using the same word differently. Dr. white needed to clarify this.