Which Would You Personally Prefer...

[Sparko]

"Simple fact"?

Nobody understands Trinitarian doctrine because it is inherently ridiculous, as is the doctrine of the hypostatic union, whereby Jesus was simultaneously fully god and fully man. They are inevitable result of the mess that came about when strict Judaic monotheists wanted to say that Jesus was God.

So you have given up trying to claim I am a modalist?

[37818]

Yes they are, but you are not making one, you're simply stating your belief such as: "Again, God is invisible and omnipresent."

I am describing God. Whom you do not believe.

No one knows anything without belief.

You have some kind of belief about the God you deny.

[Doug Shaver]

you have no clue as to what is God.

And whose fault is that? The only clues I can have are those provided by people who say he exists. I am an atheist because theists cannot give me a good reason to believe anything they say about God.

[Tassman]

So you have given up trying to claim I am a modalist?

I believe that you fell into the Modalist heresy in trying to support the Trinity. But, my main concern was to emphasise the inherent ridiculousness of the doctrine. The same applies to the doctrine of the hypostatic union, whereby Jesus was simultaneously fully god and fully man.

You keep moving the goal posts. We are not giving you a logical argument for the existence of God, just that the bible teaches that God is a Trinity and that it is a logical argument and is not contradictory. You don't have to believe in God or that he is a Trinity.

there is no logical contradiction in the concept of the Trinity.

If you wish to try to prove that there is one, please do. Merely asserting that it is illogical, or moving the goal posts is not an argument.

[Tassman]

Two things to note. One, the identity of who and what is God. Second, substantive evidence is in fact based on what God is. What needs evidence is not God. Else what ever god you think your are referring to is not God.

This is a circular argument fallacy.

Then you have no clue as to what is God.

I do. Gods are human creations and do not have an independent reality.

[Sparko]

It only takes a couple of verses to get the basic concept. I quoted them in my article previously. It is obvious that John and the other Apostles knew that Jesus was God and that there was only one God and that Jesus wasn't the Father.

The bible isn't a text book. You can't just look up Trinity in the index and expect to find a concise definition.

[37818]

This is a circular argument fallacy.

What was the circular argument? The problem has to do with what God's identity happens to be. And I will argue God is God - you do not want God to be God. I am using my understanding as to Whom God Is.

I do. Gods are human creations and do not have an independent reality.

Again, reality is defined by God - God's identity being the uncaused reality. To quote the Apostle Paul regarding the Christian view of God, "In Him we live and move and have our existence."

[37818]

And whose fault is that? The only clues I can have are those provided by people who say he exists. I am an atheist because theists cannot give me a good reason to believe anything they say about God.

God has an identity. Christians know God (noting Jesus' prayer of knowing God and Jesus Himself whom God sent) by whom Christians know they have eternal life, and cannot ever truly deny it.

[Tassman]

It only takes a couple of verses to get the basic concept. I quoted them in my article previously. It is obvious that John and the other Apostles knew that Jesus was God and that there was only one God and that Jesus wasn't the Father.

The bible isn't a text book. You can't just look up Trinity in the index and expect to find a concise definition.

"John and the other Apostles" did not know Jesus at all. The gospel narratives were written many decades after the events by non-eyewitnesses who had heard stories in circulation. The notion of the Holy Trinity only emerged slowly among people who wanted to say that Jesus was God, as did the doctrine of the hypostatic union between 'God the Father' and 'God the Son'. Neither doctrine was definitively spelt out until the Ecumenical Councils many centuries later.

[Tassman]

What was the circular argument? The problem has to do with what God's identity happens to be. And I will argue God is God - you do not want God to be God. I am using my understanding as to Whom God Is.

Again, reality is defined by God

God's identity being the uncaused reality.

This is merely another faith statement; it is not supported by substantive evidence.

To quote the Apostle Paul regarding the Christian view of God, "In Him we live and move and have our existence."

This is yet another faith statement; it is not supported by evidence. What would Paul know?

[Sparko]

"John and the other Apostles" did not know Jesus at all. The gospel narratives were written many decades after the events by non-eyewitnesses who had heard stories in circulation. The notion of the Holy Trinity only emerged slowly among people who wanted to say that Jesus was God, as did the doctrine of the hypostatic union between 'God the Father' and 'God the Son'. Neither doctrine was definitively spelt out until the Ecumenical Councils many centuries later.

I love how you like to use the bible as long as you think you can make a point with it, but as soon as we tell you how wrong you are, you go "well it's all made up anyway!"

[JimL]

I love how you like to use the bible as long as you think you can make a point with it, but as soon as we tell you how wrong you are, you go "well it's all made up anyway!"

He didn't, he used the bible to make clear to you that the authors thereof couldn't have been eye witnesses, because the gosples weren't written for many decades after the claimed events supposedly took place. In other words, "it's all made up anyways."

[mossrose]

He didn't, he used the bible to make clear to you that the authors thereof couldn't have been eye witnesses, because the gosples weren't written for many decades after the claimed events supposedly took place. In other words, "it's all made up anyways."

Gospels.

[Sparko]

He didn't, he used the bible to make clear to you that the authors thereof couldn't have been eye witnesses, because the gosples weren't written for many decades after the claimed events supposedly took place. In other words, "it's all made up anyways."

Who said anything about eye witnesses? His point was trying to say that the bible is fiction so what it says about the trinity doesn't matter. It is just another hand-waving technique.

[JimL]

Who said anything about eye witnesses? His point was trying to say that the bible is fiction so what it says about the trinity doesn't matter. It is just another hand-waving technique.

He didn't say anything about what was in the gospels other than that it was written decades later by non-eyewitnesses and that the notion of the trinity didn't emerge until long after that. But regardless of how it came about, it's still an illogical concept, and so a false claim!