Announcement

Collapse

General Theistics 101 Guidelines

This area is open for nontheists and theists to interact on issues of theism and faith in a civilized manner. We ask that nontheist participation respect the theistic views of others and not seek to undermine theism in general, or advocate for nontheism. Such posts are more suited for and allowable in Apologetics 301 with very little restriction.

The moderators of this area are given great discretion to determine if a particular thread or comment would more appropriately belong in another forum area.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Why is the Trinity an essential to there even being a God?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Insofar as the members of the trinity are separately identifiable and can act independently of each other, I would go with divisible, if only functionally - not that I'm sure there is any other facet to divisibility.

    I can't poke any holes in this as a working explanation, maybe you can:

    Man is created in the image and likeness of God: i.e. as an analogue of God, so the doctrine of the trinity becomes easy to understand at its most basic level. Man being body, soul, and spirit is himself a trinity. The Bible makes reference to the mind of the flesh and the mind of the (person's) spirit - equivalent to the Freudian id and super-ego. There are major differences in man between body, soul, and spirit which are not commensurate with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: particularly with regard to the composition (corporeal/non corporeal). Nor can a human's body act independently of soul and spirit (insofar as I can tell), but their counterparts of God can.
    Last edited by tabibito; 08-29-2015, 09:50 AM.
    sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by 37818 View Post
      I am of the persuasion that the Christian Trinity explanation is essential to there even being a God. The foundation to accept this is generally denied. The argument can be proposed that if the Trinity is not true that there could not even be a God.
      I think this is true in the sense that a god that is not fundamentally Interpersonal and Relational is not really God since he would thereby be deprived of essential perfections of being, especially that of Love and Community. But I would not really refer to this as an argument because I don't think we can formulate valid arguments about the incomprehensible essence of God. Thomas refers to this as the simplicity of God, which in part, means that God cannot be defined, which would entail the limitation of his species within a genus. This unity or simplicity of God is a witness to both the incomprehensibility of God and absolute monotheism. If God could be defined as one of a species within a larger genus of species, then one could speak of three gods, all three of which would be a kind of god, but not God.
      Last edited by robrecht; 08-29-2015, 10:01 AM.
      βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
      ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

      אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by tabibito View Post
        Insofar as the members of the trinity are separately identifiable and can act independently of each other, I would go with divisible, if only functionally - not that I'm sure there is any other facet to divisibility.
        Independent in what sense?
        βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
        ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

        אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

        Comment


        • #34
          Do the events associated with the baptism of Jesus give a sufficient basis for investigation?
          sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by tabibito View Post
            Do the events associated with the baptism of Jesus give a sufficient basis for investigation?
            Not in the theological sense of the mystery of God. Narratives about God are limited in the same way as our inability to define God.
            βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
            ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

            אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

            Comment


            • #36
              I suspected that would be the case.
              sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                Double speak and contradiction. Regardless of how you word it, the definition of the Trinity is 'three separate and distinct) persons' in one God, which is not different than the Vedic view of the Brahman and the Vedic Gods. It is a heresy to claim the reincarnation of God regardless.
                I believe you are the first one to suggest REincarnation. That is not a Christian belief in any way shape or form.
                Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                  It is a heresy to make the claim regardless of how you word it.
                  This is nothing more than an assertion. Your support so far has been inaccurate.
                  Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                    My point? Belief in Jesus Christ as the incarnate God is a heresy. I believe the belief in the literal Trinity is a false Doctrine, and a form of Polytheism.
                    You have lots of false beliefs about Christianity. Why should I give any credence at all to one more unsupported assertion?
                    Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      God has an identity. Where there cannot not be God.
                      . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

                      . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.

                      Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
                        This is nothing more than an assertion. Your support so far has been inaccurate.
                        No, it is no more of an assertion from the perspective Christianity nor Judaism. it is the view of Judaism based on Old Testament scripture that the belief in an incarnate God is heresy. We are taking about differences in beliefs based on scripture of the OT.
                        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                        go with the flow the river knows . . .

                        Frank

                        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
                          I believe you are the first one to suggest REincarnation. That is not a Christian belief in any way shape or form.
                          The Vedic belief in the case of God's does not involve the belief in reincarnation, that is separate belief and issue. The belief that all Gods are aspects of the one true inseparable God the Brahman is the belief pretty much universal with most Vedic (Hindu) beliefs.

                          I do not suggest Reincarnation, because it is well founded in the Old Testament that God was never incarnated, nor ever will be.
                          Last edited by shunyadragon; 08-30-2015, 08:25 AM.
                          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                          go with the flow the river knows . . .

                          Frank

                          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                            I do not suggest Reincarnation, because it is well founded in the Old Testament that God was never incarnated, nor ever will be.
                            citations?
                            sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                              And God's identity?
                              "I am Who am." (Exodus 3:14)
                              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                              go with the flow the river knows . . .

                              Frank

                              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                                The Logos was both "with God" (vs. 1, 2) and being "was God" (vs. 1, 3). What "was God" is not what changed. God has no parts though the three Persons are Him, the one indivisible God.
                                This is going to probably seem like a question that should have an obvious answer, but what proof is there that "Logos" is referring to Jesus?

                                Logos translates to "word", but also to any of "thought, speech, meaning, reason, proportions, principle, standard, or logic". None of these translations seems to imply a distinct entity or individual. Now I understand the interpretation is supported by John 1:14 "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."

                                However, it would seem more natural for John to use a different Greek noun or pronoun in the start of his gospel, if he intended this. Therefore it must be a somewhat metaphorical reference to Jesus bringing the word of God to humanity. But if it is metaphorical, then John 1 could alternatively imply that God's overarching principles of love, justice, power are timeless are timeless from the beginning, always with God and always part of God. (John 1:1,2) They could not be delivered perfectly to mankind without the mediation of God's anointed only-begotten son. (John 1:14)

                                If it was understood in this way, then in John 1:3, a reference to the generic "him", would not be necessary to reference the Logos, but possibly God.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Christianbookworm, 12-17-2020, 03:35 PM
                                4 responses
                                44 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Christianbookworm  
                                Started by Seeker, 08-19-2019, 10:12 AM
                                99 responses
                                19,566 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Rushing Jaws  
                                Working...
                                X