What does it mean by One God?

[ViaCrucis]

You cannot solve a logical problem by just asserting it is not a problem.

I'm also not the one saying there are three gods. I'm saying that the three Persons are the same God. Not by each having their own divine nature, thus each being a god; but by the three co-existing of the same Essence. Not multiple divine beings (in the way that there are multiple human beings); but one Divine Being. The three are the same Divine Being.

Yes, if I was saying that each of the three were a god, and that three gods are one god, that would be logically absurd. That's not, however, what Trinitarianism says.

The Father is the one God.
The Son has the Father's Deity. Not another deity that is different, other than, separate, from the Father; but the one and the same. The Son is that very same Divine Being which the Father is. Thus the Father and the Son, while distinct in Hypostasis, in their "Persons", are the same in their Being.

The Son is not God apart from the Father. The Son is God in, with, from the Father.

In Being, the one and the same.
In Hypostasis, distinction.

If I say that there are three gods that are one god. That is an obvious contradiction.
If I say that the one person is three persons. That is an obvious contradiction.

Not three beings who are the same being.
Not three essences who are the same essence.
Not three gods who are the same god.

Three Hypostases who are the same Being.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

I'm also not the one saying there are three gods. I'm saying that the three Persons are the same God. Not by each having their own divine nature, thus each being a god; but by the three co-existing of the same Essence. Not multiple divine beings (in the way that there are multiple human beings); but one Divine Being. The three are the same Divine Being.

Yes, if I was saying that each of the three were a god, and that three gods are one god, that would be logically absurd. That's not, however, what Trinitarianism says.

That is what I was taught and a lot of mainstream doctrine teaches this. Is Jesus fully God?

The Father is the one God.
The Son has the Father's Deity. Not another deity that is different, other than, separate, from the Father; but the one and the same. The Son is that very same Divine Being which the Father is. Thus the Father and the Son, while distinct in Hypostasis, in their "Persons", are the same in their Being.

How is this not saying Jesus is fully God?

The Son is not God apart from the Father. The Son is God in, with, from the Father.

In Being, the one and the same.
In Hypostasis, distinction.

If I say that there are three gods that are one god. That is an obvious contradiction.
If I say that the one person is three persons. That is an obvious contradiction.

Not three beings who are the same being.
Not three essences who are the same essence.
Not three gods who are the same god.

Three Hypostases who are the same Being.

-CryptoLutheran

This does not really solve the problem. Are Jesus, HS and the Father separate beings? Is each one of them fully God?

 

[BigV]

Not semantics. Jesus said, "If you have seen Me you have seen the Father". The Father is in the Son, so that to know the Son is to know the Father, to meet the Son is to meet the Father; the Son is described by the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews as the radiance of the Father's glory, and the express image of His Hypostasis. An encounter with Jesus is, therefore, an encounter with the Father, and an encounter with the Holy Spirit.


-CryptoLutheran

Let me ask you this. In heaven, are you going to see ONLY Jesus or the Father also and the Holy Spirit? How many entities called God will there be in heaven?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I understand there really can't be an analogy for the Trinity, since there is no analogy for a square circle. You can conceptualize a circle and a square, separately, but no a square circle. Trinity, or one God in three Persons is basically a square circle.

No, it's not, which is why I've instead used the analogies that I've used. A square circle is a fairly 2-bit example, fit for those who like "chop shop" logic, which isn't really logic.

It's a mystery that must be accepted, by faith, by members of a certain religious group. I would imagine that if you ask 20 Christians about Trinity, you'll get as many different answers.

I only need the answers that I find in the New Testament, really. The rest I burn!

 

[BigV]

I only need the answers that I find in the New Testament, really. The rest I burn!

Wrong. You are the guy who was talking about epistemology just a few days ago. You are 'interpreting' New Testament, just as the rest of Christians.

Hence, you have Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Catholics and Baptists, just to name a few, who are following the same book, but coming up with vastly different interpretations.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Wrong. You are the guy who was talking about epistemology just a few days ago. You are 'interpreting' New Testament, just as the rest of Christians.

Being that I'm an Existentialist and a Philosophical Hermeneuticst of sorts, am I interpreting "just as the rest of Christians" do? And aren't you making an unqualified statement, one that fails to parse out the nuances of difference between modes of inquiry and variations in praxis? And, aren't you just making a general statement that is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO general it almost says nothing that isn't tautological and a truism about what the human mind does for ANYTHING and for just about any topic on a common, daily basis?

Hence, you have Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Catholics and Baptists, just to name a few, who are following the same book, but coming up with vastly different interpretations.

And do you care enough to study 'how' and 'why' they've come up with different interpretations, both minor and major? Or do you just like to continue to blurt out statements about various biblically oriented people because you're gung ho to see the whole thing come crashing down?

 

[BigV]

And do you care enough to study 'how' and 'why' they've come up with different interpretations, both minor and major? Or do you just like to continue to blurt out statements about various biblically oriented people because you're gung ho to see the whole thing come crashing down?

How and why is irrelevant. The point is, there are religious believers who have their own views on the Bible. If anything, it shows the author of the work either didn't care or was unable to convey their message clearly and without confusion.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

How and why is irrelevant. The point is, there are religious believers who have their own views on the Bible. If anything, it shows the author of the work either didn't care or was unable to convey their message clearly and without confusion.

Are these the only possible answers to you pseudo-dilemma? I think not. I think you're just in denial because you'd prefer to see Christianity fall than to engage it outside of the confines of what you've been handed in churches which handle the Bible in a less hermeneutically refined way (or what I tend to think is a more irresponsible way, but that might imply more than I wish to about some of my fellow Christians).

 

[ViaCrucis]

That is what I was taught and a lot of mainstream doctrine teaches this. Is Jesus fully God?

Yes. Jesus, as the Son and Logos, is God; He is God because He has His Deity from and in the Father.

This does not really solve the problem. Are Jesus, HS and the Father separate beings?

No.

Is each one of them fully God?

Yes. The Son and Holy Spirit are homoousios (the same-being) with the Father. Thus each is fully God, the same God.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

No.

Ok, then how was Jesus on earth when he talked to the Father and promised the HS if they are not separate beings?

Yes. The Son and Holy Spirit are homoousios (the same-being) with the Father. Thus each is fully God, the same God.

-CryptoLutheran

This is then illogical as I have laid out before. God cannot be three and one at the same time.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Let me ask you this. In heaven, are you going to see ONLY Jesus or the Father also and the Holy Spirit?

Jesus, on account of His humanity, is visible, solid. So as far as "seeing" goes, it would only make sense to speak of seeing Jesus. In Christian theology what is called the beatific vision, or theoria, is the fullest expression of communication and experience of God. When all things are made new and God is "all in all", this is the direct experience of God we shall have. It is impossible to say what it is like. St. Paul says that, at present, we look through a dim, dark glass, but shall one day "know even as I am known"; and St. John says "what we shall be has not yet appeared" but "we shall be like Him".

No, I don't believe I'll see three figures in heaven or in the Age to Come. But I also don't think "seeing" in reference to God makes any sense.

The most I'd be willing to venture to say is that since Christ is a flesh and blood human being, then He can be seen. If you want to talk about the full beatific vision and the experience of the Trinity in the Age to Come I wouldn't even speculate.

How many entities called God will there be in heaven?

There is one, the Trinity.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Ok, then how was Jesus on earth when he talked to the Father and promised the HS if they are not separate beings?

1) God is everywhere.
2) The Incarnation.

This is then illogical as I have laid out before. God cannot be three and one at the same time.

Only if one ignores what is being said and substitutes it with something else. Such as insisting that the one Being is, in fact, three beings.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

1) God is everywhere.
2) The Incarnation.

Can you elaborate?

Only if one ignores what is being said and substitutes it with something else. Such as insisting that the one Being is, in fact, three beings.

-CryptoLutheran

No, I am just going by what you said. You just wave away the logical problems with the trinity by just asserting that the HS, Jesus and the Father are not three beings.

 

[Barney2.0]

No, it's one God showing himself in 3 forms. Like water can be wet, solid or gas but all is water. That is as close as an explanation as I think you will find. Our flesh and blood bodies cannot fully understand it, just know that it is and know that once we have passed on we will understand all things. Here though in the flesh, it's like a 2D man trying to undertsand a 3D man.

Just some advice friend, that’s a false analogy since what your actually expressing is modalism a heretical perversion of the Holy Trinity that teaches that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all the same character playing different roles or wearing different masks, which clearly isn’t the case. My advice is to avoid common analogies such as these.

 

[Barney2.0]

So, humans are also one (what - human) and billions of (this - Joe, Bill, Karen, etc..)?

The humanity in each of us however is the same, the man in each human is the same man unless we are to say that some are less human than others, which is clearly not the case. You and I are the same human being, yet you are a different Hypostasis then I am. We say many men as an abuse of language equal to saying, there are many human natures, which is erroneous also another reason why we speak of men in the plural is due to the separate actions each man undertakes and the individual wills of all of mankind, while we refuse to speak of God in the plural due to the shared will and action of all members of the trinity so there is no way for them to be referred to in the plural unlike man, there is only one shared operation in the trinity so there is Only One God.

 

[RBPerry]

Christians often say that God is one and not more than one but as i understand it is it mostly means One family of Gods not One God as there are three distinct deities not one God but three gods. Please explain. If ur example is similar to one i said above please dont post your answer as ive been through this justification many times

Here is where I'm going to get in trouble with my fundamentalist Christian brothers and sisters. Jesus was God's son, when he prayed he prayed to God the Father, he didn't pray to Himself. After the resurrection Jesus told his disciples he was leaving but would leave the comforter (The Holy Spirit).

So we have God the Father, Jesus Christ his son, and the Holy Spirit that intercedes for us.
I'm a Christian that also sees the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three separate operating as one.

 

[Godistruth1]

After the resurrection Jesus told his disciples he was leaving but would leave the comforter (The Holy Spirit).

Jesus said the comforter wouldn't came unless he goes away. But holy spirit was already there. Comforter is somebody else.

I'm a Christian that also sees the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three separate operating as one.

So are there three gods?

 

[RBPerry]

Jesus said the comforter wouldn't came unless he goes away. But holy spirit was already there. Comforter is somebody else.

No, Jesus was speaking of the Holy Spirit.

So are there three gods?

No, As I stated above, there is God the Father, his Son, and the Holy Spirit. Jesus infuriated the Pharisees by his claim of being the son of God, Jesus also made it clear that He was in total submission to God as is the Holy Spirit. Christians have fought over this and how does on put it in proper perspective I'm not really sure.

 

[Godistruth1]

No, As I stated above, there is God the Father, his Son, and the Holy Spirit. Jesus infuriated the Pharisees by his claim of being the son of God, Jesus also made it clear that He was in total submission to God as is the Holy Spirit. Christians have fought over this and how does on put it in proper perspective I'm not really sure.

How is it one God when there are three deities?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Can you elaborate?

It is impossible to separate the Son from the Father, as the Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father. As God, Jesus fills all things, is everywhere. As God He is in the Father, and thus is never not "where" the Father is. Jesus was not separate from the Father during His earthly ministry, as though the Father was somewhere "up there" and Jesus was separately "down here". The Son is everywhere the Father is, and the Father is everywhere the Son is.

No, I am just going by what you said. You just wave away the logical problems with the trinity by just asserting that the HS, Jesus and the Father are not three beings.

I'm not waving anything away, I am working from the established definition. If you tell me that Canada is a small island nation off the coast of Antarctica, and I say no, Canada is defined as a nation located in the northern hemisphere, as part of the land mass known as North America, it's not hand waving to assert that Canada is a nation in the northern hemisphere on the North American continent. Because by definition that is what Canada is.

Insisting on changing the meaning of words, and rejecting what people mean by what they are saying is a bad form of argument.

When I say the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit are one Being, I'm not simply saying stuff. I mean exactly what I'm saying. The Trinity does not consist of three beings because there is only one Being being spoken about.

The Son does not have a separate being from the Father. So that the Father and the Son are two divine beings. The Son has the same Being as the Father, the Son is the same Being as the Father. In this the Father and the Son are one and the same. They are distinct in their Hypostases, not in Being.

Insisting that "three beings" are being spoken about, when it's being very clearly explained that it's not is insisting upon imposing a foreign idea. It's insisting that Canada is actually an island nation off the coast of Antarctica, or that 2+2=5.

-CryptoLutheran