Interpretation the Trinity is polytheistic

[JonathanL]

So..you still want to continue...ok
but I am warning you...its going to end up going in circles....been there b4....

Of course it's going to end up going in circles, you keep conveniently "forgetting" about stuff I've already explained in previous posts and act like most of your points haven't been addressed in the thread already. You're the one who is keeping this discussion running in circles because you keep bringing up points that have been addressed already, and acting as if they haven't been answered.

1) So...the "eternal God" dies. ---ok
just so we are on the same page---"eternal" = "lasting or existing forever; without end or beginning." ---thats from google...

Yes, that's how I understand eternal as well. Not sure how you think that poses a problem for the fact that incarnate God experienced PHYSICAL death on the cross? Nothing about physical death implies the cessation of your existence, unless you're atheistic/non-believer in the spiritual.

2) So God can incarnate into any creature sinful or otherwise---just chooses not to?
God chooses to incarnate as sinless creature because to incarnate as sinful creature is not a "perfect sacrifice"
So if "perfect sacrifice" of sinless creature is the goal---why bother being human?
not to mention---if God incarnating does not mean "entering into" an existing human being---then what was God doing being born of Mary---"mother of God"?

I already answered this, multiple times in this thread. The Son incarnated as a human being because He had to be human to bear our sins.

Also, what on earth is it about Jesus being born of Mary that necessitates "entering into" an existing human being? There's literally nothing about that fact that would necessitate "entering into" an already existing human being, as opposed to a new human body starting to develop from one of Mary's egg cells.

3) So if forgiveness is going to be conditional anyway---why not just forgive human beings when they repent and ask for forgiveness as He had been doing for millennia before Christians came up with this confusing concept?....

Because even when people repented and asked for forgiveness during all the millennia before Christ died and rose again for the forgiveness of sins, people were still granted forgiveness on the merits of Christ's sacrificial work. Christ's death was not only enough to atone for all the sins of humanity that were committed after the crucifixion and resurrection, but also those sins that had been committed since the very beginning of creation.

[JonathanL]

I think humans are intrinsically good---Judeo-Islamic and Eastern philosophy generally premise that humanity is good/potentially good. That is why when we do good/right deeds we do not need any justification but when we do bad/wrong deeds, we need to justify them to ourselves or others. Being selfish and self-serving is not necessarily "easier" unless its systemic. If the whole socio-economic-justice system is built to reward the selfish and punish the unselfish---only then does it become "easier" to be selfish. ---And ironically, Christianity (Charity) is the biggest proof of that....apparently sharing food with the poor and homeless as charity is a big part of Christianity?...but many cities have made it illegal....
https://www.motherjones.com/politics...meless-bans-2/
there are other articles like the above---I just pulled the first one I found---

You might think whatever you want, but history shows us otherwise. It's only through great effort that we as humans are able to overcome our base/selfish nature. You claim being selfish and self-serving is not necessarily easier unless it's systemic, but I would claim that selfishness and being self-serving is something that we are all born with, regardless of the culture and structure of our society. Being selfish comes naturally to man, and is something that needs to be trained, disciplined or educated away through upbringing. If humans were intrinsically good, then laws and the whole judicial system with all of it's punishments and attempts to curb the selfishness of man in order to minimize the harm it does to society would be unecessary.

Islam would not have survived for so long if it were a philosophy based on committing atrocities. In fact---world history attests to the benefits brought about by the scholars, scientists, philosophers, engineers, ....etc during the Islamic age (?)/Islamicate (?)...whatever...

Islam might, or might not at it's core be a philosophy based on committing atrocities. That doesn't change the fact that the Muslim who wishes to commit acts that are considered atrocious today will have a far easier time to justify those acts using the Quran and the rest of the authoritative Islamic writings, as opposed to the Christian trying to use the NT or the OT to justify them.

Jews are wrong---So says the Christian---meanwhile Jews claim the Christians are wrong---I say---only God knows.

You say, after admitting you're not even willing to do the work necessary to find out the truth.

[siam]

1) You might think whatever you want, but history shows us otherwise. It's only through great effort that we as humans are able to overcome our base/selfish nature. You claim being selfish and self-serving is not necessarily easier unless it's systemic, but I would claim that selfishness and being self-serving is something that we are all born with, regardless of the culture and structure of our society. Being selfish comes naturally to man, and is something that needs to be trained, disciplined or educated away through upbringing. If humans were intrinsically good, then laws and the whole judicial system with all of it's punishments and attempts to curb the selfishness of man in order to minimize the harm it does to society would be unecessary.


2) Islam might, or might not at it's core be a philosophy based on committing atrocities. That doesn't change the fact that the Muslim who wishes to commit acts that are considered atrocious today will have a far easier time to justify those acts using the Quran and the rest of the authoritative Islamic writings, as opposed to the Christian trying to use the NT or the OT to justify them.


3) You say, after admitting you're not even willing to do the work necessary to find out the truth.

1) In Islam...education is very important---in order to be civilized (as opposed to uncivilized.) Human relations work best when conducted with civility---and this includes etiquette/manners, general social rules/expectations, and laws. This comprises the "way"/path and is similar in other Eastern religio-philosophical traditions as well. (also in Judaism). Selfessness---or rather, co-operation is in our DNA---in fact, homo sapiens as a species (probably the weakest species in creation) would not have survived if we did not co-operate. The fact that Parents care for their offspring shows that selflessness is an inherent part of what makes us human (and humane).
To claim the purpose of the Judicial system is for punishment and control is to misunderstand "Justice". Such a characterization of Justice probably stems from the dark view of humanity that Christianity holds?
A definition that I like says---- Justice = restoration of balance and harmony within human relations leading to peace. This is achieved through the adjudicating of rights and the discharge of obligations.

2) Humanity does not need religion to justify evil---any justification will do.
(and this is an incomplete list for a Christian justification---
https://stellarhousepublishing.com/victims/
The Quran has not changed---it has not suddenly become a text advocating violence as modernity emerges. What has changed is the tension between nationalism and globalism -- more specifically, the Nation-State and the legalization of killing for the "Nation"---state sanctioned killing. This (toxic) "nationalism" has effected all global religio-philosophies---not just Islam. The combination of a religious identity-marker with a "Licence to kill"-- Patriotism create toxic divisions that are self -destructive to humanity.
Anders Brevik ---a far right Christian terrorist is a good example---He wanted to kill for a "Christian Europe".

3) I have made the effort to verify "Truth"---and continue to make the effort to increase in knowledge to the best of my intellectual abilities---through Islam and the Quran.

[siam]

Of course it's going to end up going in circles, you keep conveniently "forgetting" about stuff I've already explained in previous posts and act like most of your points haven't been addressed in the thread already. You're the one who is keeping this discussion running in circles because you keep bringing up points that have been addressed already, and acting as if they haven't been answered.

Yes, that's how I understand eternal as well. Not sure how you think that poses a problem for the fact that incarnate God experienced PHYSICAL death on the cross? Nothing about physical death implies the cessation of your existence, unless you're atheistic/non-believer in the spiritual.

I already answered this, multiple times in this thread. The Son incarnated as a human being because He had to be human to bear our sins.

Also, what on earth is it about Jesus being born of Mary that necessitates "entering into" an existing human being? There's literally nothing about that fact that would necessitate "entering into" an already existing human being, as opposed to a new human body starting to develop from one of Mary's egg cells.

Because even when people repented and asked for forgiveness during all the millennia before Christ died and rose again for the forgiveness of sins, people were still granted forgiveness on the merits of Christ's sacrificial work. Christ's death was not only enough to atone for all the sins of humanity that were committed after the crucifixion and resurrection, but also those sins that had been committed since the very beginning of creation.

Circles---If Christians made any sense to begin with---discussions would not end up in circles.

Physical death = is not the cessation of existence. Therefore, Eternal God --- does not really "die"/cease to exist. He simply sheds off his human skin.
So---is God dead or not dead?

Mary's Eggs---Wow!! you sure u want to explore this?
"new human body starting to develop from one of Mary's egg cells."---so is this where the "begotten" business starts?
Are you implying God incarnates into a sperm?---if so, does he have to "enter into" the egg?

Forgiveness---So God, most powerful, most merciful, --- cannot forgive people---but human beings can forgive each other.

what is "resurrection"?

[JonathanL]

1) In Islam...education is very important---in order to be civilized (as opposed to uncivilized.) Human relations work best when conducted with civility---and this includes etiquette/manners, general social rules/expectations, and laws. This comprises the "way"/path and is similar in other Eastern religio-philosophical traditions as well. (also in Judaism). Selfessness---or rather, co-operation is in our DNA---in fact, homo sapiens as a species (probably the weakest species in creation) would not have survived if we did not co-operate. The fact that Parents care for their offspring shows that selflessness is an inherent part of what makes us human (and humane).
To claim the purpose of the Judicial system is for punishment and control is to misunderstand "Justice". Such a characterization of Justice probably stems from the dark view of humanity that Christianity holds?
A definition that I like says---- Justice = restoration of balance and harmony within human relations leading to peace. This is achieved through the adjudicating of rights and the discharge of obligations.

Again you mischaracterize what I said. I never claimed the judicial system is for punishment and control. My claim was that the judicial system incorporates punishment in an attempt to curb the selfishness of man, which is not equivalent at all to the statement that "the purpose of the Judicial system is for punishment and control".

I also note that none of what you write above in any way disproves the clearly demonstrable selfishness of mankind. In the vast majority of cases people only co-operate because it brings benefits to themselves, and true self-sacrificial selflessness is rarely seen, which is why when it's demonstrated it gets so highly lauded by everyone. Unless this self-sacrifical selflessness comes as naturally as breathing to you you're not truly good, you're only aspiring to be.

2) Humanity does not need religion to justify evil---any justification will do.
(and this is an incomplete list for a Christian justification---
https://stellarhousepublishing.com/victims/
The Quran has not changed---it has not suddenly become a text advocating violence as modernity emerges. What has changed is the tension between nationalism and globalism -- more specifically, the Nation-State and the legalization of killing for the "Nation"---state sanctioned killing. This (toxic) "nationalism" has effected all global religio-philosophies---not just Islam. The combination of a religious identity-marker with a "Licence to kill"-- Patriotism create toxic divisions that are self -destructive to humanity.
Anders Brevik ---a far right Christian terrorist is a good example---He wanted to kill for a "Christian Europe".

That's not a list of Christian justifications for evil, that's a list of evils that were allegedly committed in the name of Christianity. Nowhere in the list is an attempt made to try and show that these wrongdoings where justifiable under a Christian worldview.

The difference between Christianity and Islam is that Christianity was peaceful from the very beginning, but was later co-opted and it's writings misused to justify a number of atrocities. Islam on the other hand has had elements of violence in almost from the very beginning, at the very least within the lifetime of it's founder. The "tension between nationalism and globalism" that you mention might have been a factor in the increase of wrongdoings committed by adherents of modern islamism, but to pretend that Islam was purely a religion of peace before that is pure revisionism.

On a side note, Breivik was most definitely not a Christian terrorist. According to Breivik himself he prays and sacrifices to Odin, and thinks that "the Jesus-figure and his message" is one of the more pathetic things in the world.

3) I have made the effort to verify "Truth"---and continue to make the effort to increase in knowledge to the best of my intellectual abilities---through Islam and the Quran.

Well that's the problem. You're not going to find out the truth about Christianity, the claim of it's adherents and the NT by consulting Islam and the Quran.

[JonathanL]

Circles---If Christians made any sense to begin with---discussions would not end up in circles.

On the contrary, if you actually made an honest attempt at understanding, something which you haven't shown the slightest indication of doing during this entire discussion, going in circles wouldn't be necessary.

Physical death = is not the cessation of existence. Therefore, Eternal God --- does not really "die"/cease to exist. He simply sheds off his human skin.
So---is God dead or not dead?

Simply sheds off his human skin? Is that how you're going to characterize physical death? Do you think you will "shed off" your "human skin" when you die?

But God is not dead. Jesus was dead, but rose again on the third day.

Mary's Eggs---Wow!! you sure u want to explore this?
"new human body starting to develop from one of Mary's egg cells."---so is this where the "begotten" business starts?
Are you implying God incarnates into a sperm?---if so, does he have to "enter into" the egg?

Again you start with the wildest speculations and most ridiculous questions.

No, this is not where the "begotten" business start. The Father begetting the Son is another doctrine altogether, and has nothing to do with the virgin birth.

God did not incarnate into a sperm, the virgin birth was a miraculous event where Mary got pregnant through the power of the Holy Spirit, whoolly apart from the participation of any human male or male seed.

And I wouldn't know about the particulars about the virgin birth, the bible doesn't go into it in very many details.

Forgiveness---So God, most powerful, most merciful, --- cannot forgive people---but human beings can forgive each other.

You're conveniently forgetting most just as well. Forgiveness does not come unless justice is also satisfied. Whether or not (and on what basis) human beings can forgive each other or not is hardly relevant to the question of on what basis God's forgiveness is given.

what is "resurrection"?

Surely you're joking?

[TheWall]

Resurrection is the transformation of a body into a glorified state in which death and sin no longer affect the individual.

[JimL]

Resurrection is the transformation of a body into a glorified state in which death and sin no longer affect the individual.

Do you mean that we would be able to sin and it wouldn't affect our relationship with god, or do you mean that we would no longer be able to sin? If the latter, then there was no need of a crucible in the first place, god could have created us without the ability to sin in the first place. If the former, then the same applies, god could have created us that way in the first place.

The Christian notion of resurrection has nothing to do with sin, but with belief!

[siam]

1) Again you mischaracterize what I said. I never claimed the judicial system is for punishment and control. My claim was that the judicial system incorporates punishment in an attempt to curb the selfishness of man, which is not equivalent at all to the statement that "the purpose of the Judicial system is for punishment and control".

2) I also note that none of what you write above in any way disproves the clearly demonstrable selfishness of mankind. In the vast majority of cases people only co-operate because it brings benefits to themselves, and true self-sacrificial selflessness is rarely seen, which is why when it's demonstrated it gets so highly lauded by everyone. Unless this self-sacrifical selflessness comes as naturally as breathing to you you're not truly good, you're only aspiring to be.



That's not a list of Christian justifications for evil, that's a list of evils that were allegedly committed in the name of Christianity. Nowhere in the list is an attempt made to try and show that these wrongdoings where justifiable under a Christian worldview.

3) The difference between Christianity and Islam is that Christianity was peaceful from the very beginning, but was later co-opted and it's writings misused to justify a number of atrocities. Islam on the other hand has had elements of violence in almost from the very beginning, at the very least within the lifetime of it's founder. The "tension between nationalism and globalism" that you mention might have been a factor in the increase of wrongdoings committed by adherents of modern islamism, but to pretend that Islam was purely a religion of peace before that is pure revisionism.

On a side note, Breivik was most definitely not a Christian terrorist. According to Breivik himself he prays and sacrifices to Odin, and thinks that "the Jesus-figure and his message" is one of the more pathetic things in the world.

4) Well that's the problem. You're not going to find out the truth about Christianity, the claim of it's adherents and the NT by consulting Islam and the Quran.

1) Judicial system---What is your (personal or a general Christian) definition/understanding of Justice?

2) Self-sacrificial selflessness---This would be against Islamic ethics/morality. Human life and its preservation is an important ethical principle---which is why Homicide and Suicide are wrong.
An individual human life is valuable and the responsibility/obligation of its care and preservation lies with the individual to whom God has given this "life". However, All humanity is of equivalent value---none superior or inferior to another---therefore the "right to life" and its correspondent responsibilities are equally given to all humanity.
There is nothing wrong with the concept of self-benefit---as long as this is not at the expense of ( injustice, oppression, exploitation) another. ...to profit is permissibly, greed is not. (win-win as opposed to win-lose...in game theory its called non-zero-sum.)
If the Christian goal of being "Human/Humane" is self-sacrifice---it is a path that is harmful to life and self-destructive to humanity.

3) God kills himself after being tortured bloody and this moment is commemorated and worshiped!!---that seems pretty violent to me.....?!...

4) As I explained---what Christians claim as "truth" the Jews deny---and what Jews believe, the Christians refute---as for me---I will stick with what God says.

[JimL]

1) Judicial system---What is your (personal or a general Christian) definition/understanding of Justice?

2) Self-sacrificial selflessness---This would be against Islamic ethics/morality. Human life and its preservation is an important ethical principle---which is why Homicide and Suicide are wrong.
An individual human life is valuable and the responsibility/obligation of its care and preservation lies with the individual to whom God has given this "life". However, All humanity is of equivalent value---none superior or inferior to another---therefore the "right to life" and its correspondent responsibilities are equally given to all humanity.
There is nothing wrong with the concept of self-benefit---as long as this is not at the expense of ( injustice, oppression, exploitation) another. ...to profit is permissibly, greed is not. (win-win as opposed to win-lose...in game theory its called non-zero-sum.)
If the Christian goal of being "Human/Humane" is self-sacrifice---it is a path that is harmful to life and self-destructive to humanity.

3) God kills himself after being tortured bloody and this moment is commemorated and worshiped!!---that seems pretty violent to me.....?!...

4) As I explained---what Christians claim as "truth" the Jews deny---and what Jews believe, the Christians refute---as for me---I will stick with what God says.

What is it that you mean by the bolded above?

[siam]

Resurrection is the transformation of a body into a glorified state in which death and sin no longer affect the individual.

Thankyou

Could you elaborate?

what is meant by "body" that you mentioned above?
Is it correct to presume "glorified state" = no sin, no death?

[siam]

1) On the contrary, if you actually made an honest attempt at understanding, something which you haven't shown the slightest indication of doing during this entire discussion, going in circles wouldn't be necessary.

2) Simply sheds off his human skin? Is that how you're going to characterize physical death? Do you think you will "shed off" your "human skin" when you die?

3) But God is not dead. Jesus was dead, but rose again on the third day.

Again you start with the wildest speculations and most ridiculous questions.

4) No, this is not where the "begotten" business start. The Father begetting the Son is another doctrine altogether, and has nothing to do with the virgin birth.
God did not incarnate into a sperm, the virgin birth was a miraculous event where Mary got pregnant through the power of the Holy Spirit, whoolly apart from the participation of any human male or male seed.
And I wouldn't know about the particulars about the virgin birth, the bible doesn't go into it in very many details.

5) You're conveniently forgetting most just as well. Forgiveness does not come unless justice is also satisfied. Whether or not (and on what basis) human beings can forgive each other or not is hardly relevant to the question of on what basis God's forgiveness is given.

Surely you're joking?

1) Yes, you are right. But in my defense, I must inform you that I did make serious attempts at understanding the Trinity---the main doctrine that must be understood in order to understand the rest of the dogma---asking Christians, watching videos and even asking priests. My logic was that if a billion people understood the Trinity---I should be able to as well. Unfortunately,---I did not---leaving me with the conclusion that I was simply intellectually incapable of understanding it.

2) Me?...I am not God, nor did I incarnate!! I was under the assumption we were talking about God's death/Lack thereof?...have we moved onto human death?

3)"But God is not dead. Jesus was dead, but rose again on the third day."
OK---God is not dead/did NOT die---it was Jesus that died---not God---are we on the same page on this?
"Jesus rose on the third day"---so Jesus dies but only for 3 days?
By "Jesus dies" we are talking about the "physical death" (shedding the body)?

4) OK---virgin birth is a "mystery".

5) God is most Just---please elaborate

[JonathanL]

1) Judicial system---What is your (personal or a general Christian) definition/understanding of Justice?

Justice is paying the price for transgressions against God's law.

2) Self-sacrificial selflessness---This would be against Islamic ethics/morality. Human life and its preservation is an important ethical principle---which is why Homicide and Suicide are wrong.
An individual human life is valuable and the responsibility/obligation of its care and preservation lies with the individual to whom God has given this "life". However, All humanity is of equivalent value---none superior or inferior to another---therefore the "right to life" and its correspondent responsibilities are equally given to all humanity.
There is nothing wrong with the concept of self-benefit---as long as this is not at the expense of ( injustice, oppression, exploitation) another. ...to profit is permissibly, greed is not. (win-win as opposed to win-lose...in game theory its called non-zero-sum.)
If the Christian goal of being "Human/Humane" is self-sacrifice---it is a path that is harmful to life and self-destructive to humanity.

On the contrary, self-sacrificial love (which does not necessarily imply giving up your own life, but can also mean giving up benefits that you enjoy in order that someone else might gain from it) is conducive to life and humanity, on the condition that everyone, or at least the majority practices it. If everyone lives not for their own sake, but for the sake of their community, and does not seek their own gain it naturally leads to a situation where even if someone sacrifices much for the sake of others he will have nothing to worry about, because his self-sacrificial acts will be reciprocated by his fellow community members during times of his own need.

3) God kills himself after being tortured bloody and this moment is commemorated and worshiped!!---that seems pretty violent to me.....?!...

God kills Himself? Where on earth have you gotten that misconception from? And what is being commemorated and worshipped is not the torture and death in itself, but God, His love for mankind, the the lengths He is willing to go to redeem us from our sins.

4) As I explained---what Christians claim as "truth" the Jews deny---and what Jews believe, the Christians refute---as for me---I will stick with what God says.

And what Muslims claim as truth both Jews and Christians deny. Islam claims to be the continuation of the revelation of the Old and New Testament, but when you read the Quran it contradicts both of them. God's word is not found in the Quran.

[JonathanL]

1) Yes, you are right. But in my defense, I must inform you that I did make serious attempts at understanding the Trinity---the main doctrine that must be understood in order to understand the rest of the dogma---asking Christians, watching videos and even asking priests. My logic was that if a billion people understood the Trinity---I should be able to as well. Unfortunately,---I did not---leaving me with the conclusion that I was simply intellectually incapable of understanding it.

No one "understands" the Trinity. To presume to be able to understand one of the greatest mysteries of God would be arrogance of the highest order. The question is not whether you understand the Trinity or not, the question is whether the doctrine of the Trinity is consistent with God's word as revealed in the Old and New Testament. And the Christian response is that the Trinity is the only doctrine that makes sense of all the passages in the Old and New Testament that speak variously about God's oneness and unity, but also the passages that speak about the plurality of God.

2) Me?...I am not God, nor did I incarnate!! I was under the assumption we were talking about God's death/Lack thereof?...have we moved onto human death?

Jesus death on the cross was no different in nature from a regular human death. That's why I asked you if you believe your death, when it comes, can accurately be characterized as you "shedding off" your "human skin".

3)"But God is not dead. Jesus was dead, but rose again on the third day."
OK---God is not dead/did NOT die---it was Jesus that died---not God---are we on the same page on this?
"Jesus rose on the third day"---so Jesus dies but only for 3 days?
By "Jesus dies" we are talking about the "physical death" (shedding the body)?

No, we are not on the same page on this. Jesus IS the Son, so Jesus dying a physical death means that God the Son dies a physical death. Jesus and (God) the Son simply being different names for the same person. Anything that happened to Jesus can be properly claimed to have happened to God the Son, since they are one and the same. Therefore, when Christians say that Jesus died on the cross for the sins of humanity, it is equivalent to saying that God the Son died on the cross for the sins of humanity.

4) OK---virgin birth is a "mystery".

Surely Islam has it's own share of mysteries as well?

5) God is most Just---please elaborate

God being perfectly just means that he cannot overlook transgressions done against His law without the penalty for the transgression being paid. As Paul writes in Romans 3:

Scripture Verse: Romans 3:21-26 ESV

This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

© Copyright Original Source

In other words, the reason God could forgive sins even before Christ taking on human nature and dying on the cross for our sake was precisely because Christ was going to die on the cross to atone both those former sins, and every other sin ever committed, and those that will be committed.

[TheWall]

Thankyou

Could you elaborate?

what is meant by "body" that you mentioned above?
Is it correct to presume "glorified state" = no sin, no death?

In the gospels after arriving from the tomb jesus had a physical body. People were able to touch him and he ate food.

I admit I am no expert on this but I suggest reading through the bible and also folks like William lane Craig or ravi zacharias.