My brief (and polemical) thought about Christianity...

[One Bad Pig]

BTW, I am sorry you guys didn't like the OP. I will try to do better next time. I also am not really sure, is this a majoritarily Christian website? I read that somewhere. If so, it might be rude of me to post atheist thoughts and claims. I assumed this was a open debate forum, though I realize some sections are restricted to obviously avoid unnecessary conflict (this remembers me much of sport's teams rivalry).

Yes, it's a Christian-run website. No, it's not rude to post atheist thoughts and claims. Yes, it's an open debate forum.

[One Bad Pig]

I should have also mentioned this isn't even ''Apologetics 301'', but ''General Theistics 101''. So, one more thing you didn't get right...

To be fair, it really should be in Apologetics; General Theistics is meant to be for irenic, not polemical discussion.

[Seeker]

BTW, I am sorry you guys didn't like the OP. I will try to do better next time. I also am not really sure, is this a majoritarily Christian website? I read that somewhere. If so, it might be rude of me to post atheist thoughts and claims. I assumed this was a open debate forum, though I realize some sections are restricted to obviously avoid unnecessary conflict (this remembers me much of sport's teams rivalry).

[Seeker]

I should have also mentioned this isn't even ''Apologetics 301'', but ''General Theistics 101''. So, one more thing you didn't get right...

[Terraceth]

[mikewhitney]

The two aren't mutually exclusive. Maybe they did both, though I have no historical knowledge or background to confirm that.

Basically the first and biggest struggle was to figure out concepts and terms to describe the relationship of God the Father and God the Son. The issues arise because of the descriptions of Jesus as being born of woman and as God incarnate and subservient to Father. The difficulty is for the creation to understand the Creator in a fashion that people can comprehend.

The additional discussion of the Holy Spirit was added later after the focus shifted away from the place of Jesus in the Godhead. The Holy Spirit debate was simpler since no incarnation aspect had to be figured out here.

[One Bad Pig]

The two aren't mutually exclusive. Maybe they did both, though I have no historical knowledge or background to confirm that.

They're not mutually exclusive, but once Jesus Christ was agreed to be homoousious with the Father, Arianism rapidly disappeared, whereas the Nestorian and Monophysite disagreements were more permanent.

[Seeker]

The ECFs struggled rather more over the nature of Jesus Christ than the Trinity per se.

The two aren't mutually exclusive. Maybe they did both, though I have no historical knowledge or background to confirm that.

[One Bad Pig]

Assuming Holding's interpretation/understanding of the Trinity is correct the reason why the ECF would have had trouble understanding the doctrine would probably be because they were the ones who had to lay all the groundwork that made it possible for Holding to present/explain the Trinity in such a simple manner in the first place. I.e, JPH's explanation of the Trinity is only possible because of the ECF's struggle/hard work of trying to make sense of the Trinity in the first place.

The ECFs struggled rather more over the nature of Jesus Christ than the Trinity per se.

[JonathanL]

JP Holding's short e-book on the Trinity explains it in a way that even I can understand. (Though the obvious question is that if his interpretation is correct, why did the early church fathers have so much trouble understanding it?)

Assuming Holding's interpretation/understanding of the Trinity is correct the reason why the ECF would have had trouble understanding the doctrine would probably be because they were the ones who had to lay all the groundwork that made it possible for Holding to present/explain the Trinity in such a simple manner in the first place. I.e, JPH's explanation of the Trinity is only possible because of the ECF's struggle/hard work of trying to make sense of the Trinity in the first place.

[Seeker]

JP Holding's short e-book on the Trinity explains it in a way that even I can understand. (Though the obvious question is that if his interpretation is correct, why did the early church fathers have so much trouble understanding it?)

I have read Holding's articles on the Trinity a decade ago, and I remember it making some sense to me. Perhaps I should look for them again.

[Seeker]

Again amateurish. Can't argue well, can't do 'you are not real Christian well', suggestion of demi is to stay out of Apologetics 301.

At least I can spell properly, dude...or should I say, troll.

[demi-conservative]

More likely, he knows very well who he is talking to. And he knows it is not worth it.

And you call yourself a Christian?

Again amateurish. Can't argue well, can't do 'you are not real Christian well', suggestion of demi is to stay out of Apologetics 301.

[JonathanL]

Some people don't understand what "three persons" means.

The word “person” carries a lot of baggage in my opinion. The use of the word “person” brings to our minds three people, like Tom, Dick and Harry. All three are people and all three are separate beings.

This is not how the word “person” is used in the Trinity. In the nature of the one God, the One Being who is God, there are three centers of consciousness, who we call “persons.” These persons are equal. The Trinity is an absolute unity and they relate to one another in love. The Trinity is relational.

Unlike people or human persons the persons of the Trinity are not separable from one another, they indwell each other.

“Persons” means there are three personal distinctions within God, each who is fully God, yet only one God.

I'm not sure what your point is?

[Cow Poke]

Funny. I have J.I. Packer's book, "Knowing God" and it is excellent.

Yes, he shared some insights from that work at this conference I reference.