Philokalia's forum posts

Avatar image for Philokalia
Philokalia

2910

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

9

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 Philokalia
Member since 2012 • 2910 Posts

[QUOTE="champion837"][QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]The idea of one God having three seperate parts makes no sense at all.RationalAtheist

It makes plenty of sense when you consider that he is God. God, a being who is the creator of the universe. Why would a being of his stature not be able to do this?

Why be only three seperate parts? Why not more? Why wait 6 billion years to split into one person who got tortured and killed to teach some people a lesson? Why wouldn't a universal creator think of something more elegant?

Again, he doesn't have parts. the essence of God is single, it is simple. God is not composed of parts like us. See you are bringing in naturalistic terms into this conversation about an entity which is not physical.

Avatar image for Philokalia
Philokalia

2910

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

9

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2 Philokalia
Member since 2012 • 2910 Posts

It would not follow that your apple is only red. It might have the attribute red, but it would not equal the attribute.

The great thing about mathematics is that mathematical logic is incontrovertible.

RationalAtheist

You realise though it doesn't support you right? That this does then allow for there to be seperate persons within the Godhead?

Avatar image for Philokalia
Philokalia

2910

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

9

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 Philokalia
Member since 2012 • 2910 Posts

We? How many of you are there?

God being beyond any conception is not a logical proposition. You say God only has one substance, but then say no-one can conceive of the simple nature of God. That is a contradiction.

You have not defined the trinity in terms of persons and substances. You use words and associate your own vague and mysterious terms for them, that contradict and deny any real meaning. You say this while admitting that nobody can know how this divinity works - only that it does.

In declaring a trinity, you surely agree to someseparation between God, Jesus and the Holy spirit. These would be different, distinct parts of God. This is another contradiction.

RationalAtheist

God going beyond conception neccessarily follows, although the word conception might be misleading, so comprehension I think is better in this context. And theres only one of me. And I have not defined until I am convinced people actually understand these concepts of personhood and substance. These aren't mysterious. You admitted to what a person is, a mind without physicality right? Now can you conceive of substance merely being the thing or that which composes that thing? And yes, there is distinction between the father and hte son and the spirit. But they are not parts, they share equally the whole. Now of course if they were physical this could not possibly happen, but when we consider the eternal, unrealised nature of what we are talking about, it suddenly becomes less obvious of how contradictory it really is.

Avatar image for Philokalia
Philokalia

2910

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

9

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 Philokalia
Member since 2012 • 2910 Posts

I've been trying to keep up with this thread but your posts are awful. You basically say that others don't understand and then you try and explain in a way that is vague, and hardly legible, do you make all these spelling and grammar mistakes on purpose? You keep saying we have to understand persons and substance yet you don't clearly define them.

Jolt_counter119

What don't you understand about the concepts of personhood and substance? Tell me. Before we can even talk about trinity you have to understand these words and every time no one understands them, out of what I am convinced is an effort to remain willfully ignorant. And I have talked to non Christians who do understand the trinity because they understand the basic framework of ideas behind it.

Avatar image for Philokalia
Philokalia

2910

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

9

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 Philokalia
Member since 2012 • 2910 Posts

If X=Q and Y=Q and Z=Q, then X=Y=Z=Q must follow!

RationalAtheist

No that does not follow.

Lets posit this.

A is an apple.

R is the colour red.

T is my fullmetal alchemist red tin.

A = R

T = R

Does therefore A = T?

Clearly it doesn't.

Avatar image for Philokalia
Philokalia

2910

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

9

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 Philokalia
Member since 2012 • 2910 Posts

It's rich that you preface your post by accusing me of strawmanning the trinity, and then go on some tangent knocking down a strawman of my argument.

The theological minutiae of Jesus is unimportant to this discussion. It doesn't make a difference at all that Jesus "became incarnate within time" rather than "begun to exist." I'll grant you whatever you want about the origin (or lack thereof) of Jesus for the sake of this discussion. And no, what I described is not modalism. Modalism is actually a coherent reconciliation of Jesus, God the father, and the holy spirit. Trinitarianism is not. Yes, you believe that X, Y, and Z are all distinct identities, and if you stopped there then we wouldn't be having this conversation. But you don't stop there, because Christianity claims to be a monotheistic religion, so not only do X, Y, and Z not equal each other, and represent distinct entities, but X, Y, and Z also at the same time do equal each other, and are 1 single identity.

-Sun_Tzu-

You stated falsehood after falsehood Sun.

- You stated the idea that the father is the son is illogical, which I agree, and it is false to say this is the trinity.

- You stated or at least implied that the son came into existence, this is not the Christian viewpoint.

And no modalism is not coherrent, at least when see the scripture play out. Consider that Jesus and his baptism. Jesus as man gets praised by God the father. Do you know what would be involved here? the son would have had ot shift back to being the father to praise himself as the son then shift into the spirit while at the same time being the son so that spriti descends upon him. No modalism, at least when the bible is taken into consideration does not make sense. Perhaps in its own theology devoid of the bible it may make sense, but not within the biblical framework. Which is what modalism claims to work within mind you. And if you did not describe modalism, you described patripassionism, that hte son is the father which again is not the trinity. And you are mistating the position of the trinity again

X Y and Z are not equal to each other, they have the same substance, lets say Q. X is Q, Y is Q, Z is Q, but X=/=Y=/=Z.

Avatar image for Philokalia
Philokalia

2910

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

9

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 Philokalia
Member since 2012 • 2910 Posts

No I didn't dismiss them - I questioned them. I found issue with them. I tried to find logical coherence with them, then you started talking about the mystery being a logical proposition. I don't need to work Phil - I don't know why you'd ask. You only need look at my post history to see I don't post here as much as you do.

It's not a question of me believeing you and you obviously do care, since you keep trying to enforce your correctness and other peoples' lack of understanding, despite being completely unable to explain the trinity in real terms.

I understand the conceptual idea of a seperate mind from the body, but I do believe in a more naturalistic and rational explanation for conciousness. I fail to see how only that idea alone would make the trinity illogical though. The idea of one God having three seperate parts makes no sense at all. I can't really understand how you think ithe idea would be logical in any way. You even said last time we spoke that it was a mystery. You may as well say that God has four parts, because of the previous nature of Yahweh in the OT.

RationalAtheist

Ah, so there we see the problem. it is not thought of that God has parts, like you or i. God is the most simple of all beings, as is neccessaited of a being is not physical. God is composed of only one substance and this is why I spoke as to the mystery of the trinity. That is how can the most simple bieng, comprise of three persons yet remain one at the same time? I suggest this is essentially the totally unable question to answer, as God is beyond any conception we might have at that point in terms of how his divine substance works. But I have defined the trinity as to persons and substance. We must understand these words first before we even talk about the trintiy. So no, God does not have parts, he is not complex at all in his substance.

Avatar image for Philokalia
Philokalia

2910

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

9

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 Philokalia
Member since 2012 • 2910 Posts

You know, I have a question for Christians, and I don't mean to offend, it is a serious question and it comes from a Jewish point of view. Now I have read The Bible, both the KJV and the NIV, and I find many aspects of Jesus to be a bit confusing.

1) The trinity makes no sense to me, how can you have 3 gods? Or 3 parts of one god? To me this seems totally pagan, there is only one God with no image or idol. Not 3 parts or 3 aspects. The word trinity doesn't even appear in the bible, so where are people getting this from?

2) The idea that man can become God, or is God, is a pagan concept to Jews. Man is flawed, he cannot become god ever. Also to worship a man is to go against the law of false idols, and the concept of no man made image of God. Christians are going against these very concepts.

3) Sin, there is no origional sin ever mentioned in the bible. Such a concept is also flawed, some Christians believe that all men are born with sin or commited sin, and we deserve hell. They claim Jesus died for our sins and that only through acceptance that is the only way to go to heaven. This concept goes against God's law completely, for one God does not use human sacrifices, and there is no such thing as origional sin either, it is never mentioned once in the bible. And according to this view, all the Jews that died in the Shoah (Holocaust) are in hell (another concept that is not in the origional texts) and people like Hitler are in heaven becauase they were technically Christians. This is a very backwards, and quite frankly offensive, concept to me. It does not make God out to be loving or merficul.

4) God said his covenant with the Children of Israel is eternal. It is everlasting. So for Christians to deny this is like them calling God a liar, God does not lie. Many of the prophecies Jesus did not meet, he did a few things like come into Jerusalem on a Donkey. But he did not rebuild the temple, drive out the Romans or bring peace to the world and show all children the one true God. There was no resurrection of men either.

I respect Christians and I think Jesus had some great teachings and wisdom. But I don't think he was the messiah. So if Christians can clear up some of my confusions so I can better understand their views I will appreciate it. Thanks!

ShadowMoses900

1 That you have to make the trinity three gods instead of what it really is indicates you are less than sincere in asking the question. Three gods automatically pulls into mind the image of traditional polytheism which the trinity is not. Because we see within the three persons of the trinity them sharing the same divine substance, not being totally individual from each other in terms of their substance unlike the traditional polytheisms we all know. There is no wonder you would call it pagan because you are understanding the trinity on the basis of paganism and not the trinity itself which you will find does not have pagan counterpart. This is why Christians are struck to hear this claim, and why educated Christians dont take it very seriously.

Second, that a word doesnt appear in the bible does not mark the end of discussion in interpreting biblical ideas. Many ideas and concepts you would accept are not found in the bible, consider the most ironic one, that of a bible itself. A collection (I assume you believe in the 66 book canon of Protestantism) is to be nowhere found and specifically define within the books of the old or new testament itself. We understand from history, it was the church which gathered these books and collected them into one volume we know as the bible today, and that the early church had more books than this and that those churches which are most ancient have more books than the protestants who took out books of the bible. The point with this illustration is to say that not all concepts must be clearly defined within the bible itself in order for it to be true. Because we see within books of the bible that there were authoritative works, illustrated within the New testament and how it quotes the old testament constantly to support what is being said, though not all books of the old testament are quoted.

2- The incarnation, first of all you have completely misrepresented the very idea of it in the first place. We are told in the scripture the word which was God became flesh, not the man that was flesh became God. Again this is another proof that you are less than charitable when it comes to understanding the Christian position. And if I may go on a tangent I will say something, that before criticising any idea, we must take strides and efforts to first of all comprehend it as the person who believes in it understand its. We must be charitable. We must be charitable in trying to understand the Islamic concept of tauwhid before criticising it. In the same way we must be charitable towards the trinity before criticising it, this was the mistake of many in the past who did not understand it but nonetheless criticised it. So with that we actually have to present what the incarnation is and this I believe was best said by the apostle Paul and the saints.

Phillipians 2:6 Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7But emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and in habit found as a man. 8He humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, even to the death of the cross. 9For which cause, God also has exalted him and has given him a name which is above all names: 10That in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those that are in heaven, on earth, and under the earth: 11And that every tongue should confess that the Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father.

Iraneaus, against the heretic, book five preface : For it is thus that you will both controvert them in a legitimate manner, and will be prepared to receive the proofs brought forward against them, casting away their doctrines as filth by means of the celestial faith; but following the only true and steadfast Teacher, the Word of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, who did, through His transcendent love, become what we are, that He might bring us to be even what He is Himself.

Athanasius of Alexandria : The Word was made flesh in order that we might be made gods. . . . Just as the Lord, putting on the body, became a man, so also we men are both deified through his flesh, and henceforth inherit everlasting life."[13] Athanasius also observed:"He became man that men might be made gods.

That is Jesus Christ was not a finite man who became divine, but the divine that became man, by taking on the very nature of man himself without contorting or it co mingling with his divine nature. Thus your criticisms are inherently flawed from the first premise of your question. Jesus as God the incarnate man can be worshipped and was worshipped by his apostles. But interesting you bring up in your criticsm that Christ is himself if he is God would be the very image of God on earth. This is a great proof for the deity of Christ, and is a great thing.It should not be understood by any means that Christs physical body is the actual true substance of divinity itself, but what it shows is what the saints taught, that Jesus being the image of the invisible God, God on earth to us has shown God truly present with the affairs of the creatures he loves, to the point of dying on the cross.

3. That in the scripture mankind has inherited the nature of adam, of our progenitor, a flawed nature, original sin is made present and clear. That saint Paul speaks that by one man death entered into the world and by one man Christ life entered into the world we see the concept even if the words arent used. Something you are still hung up about it seems. I agree that western notions of original sin, that the guilt of adam is on all creation is very much flawed, we inherited the nature of Adam, not his sin. We are responsible for our own sins.

4. Gods covenant with Israel is everlasting. But who is isreal? Is it the jews who rejected Christ their messiah? No, true Israel was with the apostles that accepted the messiah and thus God remained loyal to them who continued to obey and listen to him. And that gentiles were grafted into Israel by faith, no longer by circumcision. This pervades through the very book of romans itself, that the true branch is the branch of faith which has accepted Christ as Lord. So Israel was never forsaken, Israel persists to this day, in the church of Christ. As for the prophecies Christ did not meet, here we come to the resurrection, through which all the laws of the old testament are fulfilled. That is when Christ rose from the dead the third day with the body glorified as shown in Daniel 12, this is the vindication of Christ to the world that we might know salvation, that death does not reign anymore and has been conquered and trampled over, that God would not raise a false prophet in such a way.

Avatar image for Philokalia
Philokalia

2910

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

9

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 Philokalia
Member since 2012 • 2910 Posts

Well yes, there is no biblical evidence of the trinity but i admire that despite all that you still believe in it. Faith is something that I can admire in others, the ability to ignore reality and focus on a goal is admirable, I would like the ability to tweak my mental state to anything i desire.

tenaka2

I admire that you have so much confidence despite being given the references which show the trinity. I could never do that. I imagine you would find someway to destroy the doctrine of tauwhid wihtin the quran if you had to. That because that word nowhere appears in it, therefore the quran doesn't accept it. Its admirable silliness. Although unlike GK Chesterton its not enduring or smart.

Avatar image for Philokalia
Philokalia

2910

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

9

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 Philokalia
Member since 2012 • 2910 Posts

I feel like this is going to be an exercise in futility because of your constant inability to actually critically engage your own beliefs, but it's really not that complicated to outline.

Have X equal God the father. God the father is an immaterial entity that exists outside of the universe (whatever that might be). Y is Jesus of Nazareth, a 30 year old Jewish carpenter who traveled around Judea 2000 years ago. And Z is the holy spirit, some other immaterial entity that is ontologically distinct from God the father.

This all breaks down once you claim that X=Y=Z, because they clearly don't equal each other, no matter how much theological BS you smear over it. God cannot be both this formless supernatural being yet simultaneously be a 30 year old Jew in Jerusalem 2000 years ago, oh and by the way he's his own father. That's in clear violation with the law of identity.

-Sun_Tzu-

See you actually strawmanned the trinity. Jesus did not begin to exist. He became incarnate within time. Thus your entire idea is faulty. The persons have existed together from all eternity.And I agree, X Y and Z are not each other, they are their own persons. This is the point in the first place. We Christians are not modalists. We do nto believe the father to be the son to be the spirit and vice versa. So your so called proof of algebra against the trinity is nothing more than actually clarifiying the trinity, the distinction between the persons involved. That and you don't understand the incarnation, Jesus did not begin to exist and only existed for thirty years. This seems like placing your own naturalism onto the theology involved to make it illogical. And granted if your naturalism is true then the trinity doesn't exist. So yuo don't like all others here even understand the difference between the trinity and modalism.

I may also comment on the hypostatic union which you seemed to criticise. That you misidentify the flesh of Christ as being the divinity of Christ. That the two are not the same you must take into consideration. That I wear a glove does not make the glove apart of me, in the same way Christ wears the body of humanity, takes humanity onto himself it does not affect his divinity. Another person who simply cannot grasp God.