|
Post by clusium on May 22, 2019 22:39:18 GMT
You answered your own question, right in your very first sentence (regarding H2O). The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are the Same Deity, but, Different Persons in that Deity. The Holy Ghost Is the Spirit Of God, Who Brings about Sanctification in His Creation, Which leaves intact Goz's original question, to wit: how can three beings exist in one deity? Your answer to this thus far has been no answer at all. I have answered the question. She just won't accept the answer.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on May 22, 2019 22:39:58 GMT
No. I am only using the example of H2O to show how there can be Only One God in 3 Divine Persons. It should be obvious to you why that's a poor analogy. It's not. It's a good analogy. Same with the example I used with time.
|
|
|
Post by goz on May 22, 2019 22:57:38 GMT
Why does an allegedly omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent deity need this? For that matter why did 'God' even need to have a 'son' in Jesus, and why and how can a son e be the father. I keep asking and you keep prevaricating about this. He allegedly MUST have been his sin as Mary was his mother. I repeat. A son cannot be his father and a father cannot be his son. No matter if you call them 'persons' (which implies a level of humanity which is in appropriate,) 'beings' element of whatever what is the need when God is allegedly omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent deity. I t doesn't make any sense at all. God Is Love. Love Creates, hence the Son Came from the Father. As you already noted God Is Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnipresent. Why? Because He Is God. That is also why He Is more than 1 Person in the Godhead. God Is a Wholly Different Entity than all of us, which is why He Can Be 3 Persons in His Godhead. You realise that you just totally contradicted yourself and had to therefore come up with the argument ' he just is', and he can do whatever he wants. See my latest thread for WHY does God need all this paraphernalia?
|
|
|
Post by clusium on May 22, 2019 23:20:26 GMT
You realise that you just totally contradicted yourself and had to therefore come up with the argument ' he just is', and he can do whatever he wants. See my latest thread for WHY does God need all this paraphernalia? How have I contradicted myself? What I stated in my previous post is my explanation. God Is Love. Love Creates.
|
|
|
Post by goz on May 22, 2019 23:24:01 GMT
You realise that you just totally contradicted yourself and had to therefore come up with the argument ' he just is', and he can do whatever he wants. See my latest thread for WHY does God need all this paraphernalia? How have I contradicted myself? What I stated in my previous post is my explanation. God Is Love. Love Creates. Not that part ( though it is a little bit weird to think how and why God needed a son, having sex with Mary and creating himself again ) The part I bolded.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on May 22, 2019 23:42:46 GMT
How have I contradicted myself? What I stated in my previous post is my explanation. God Is Love. Love Creates. Not that part ( though it is a little bit weird to think how and why God needed a son, having sex with Mary and creating himself again ) The part I bolded. He Did not "Create" Himself again in the Womb of the Virgin Mary. He Existed PRIOR to His Incarnation in the Womb Of the Virgin Mary.
|
|
|
Post by goz on May 23, 2019 3:24:32 GMT
Not that part ( though it is a little bit weird to think how and why God needed a son, having sex with Mary and creating himself again ) The part I bolded. He Did not "Create" Himself again in the Womb of the Virgin Mary. He Existed PRIOR to His Incarnation in the Womb Of the Virgin Mary. What? WHO didn't create himself in the womb, God or Jesus? I can't believe we are even having this ridiculous conversation. WHO existed prior? abbott-and-costello-whos-on-first.info/whos-on-first-script/
|
|
|
Post by clusium on May 23, 2019 4:36:22 GMT
He Did not "Create" Himself again in the Womb of the Virgin Mary. He Existed PRIOR to His Incarnation in the Womb Of the Virgin Mary. What? WHO didn't create himself in the womb, God or Jesus? I can't believe we are even having this ridiculous conversation. WHO existed prior? abbott-and-costello-whos-on-first.info/whos-on-first-script/ Jesus IS God.
|
|
|
Post by goz on May 23, 2019 6:06:35 GMT
How can he be his father when his father had sex (came upon) with Mary and she gave birth in a manger in Bethlehem? NOT possible. You don't plant yourself in some earthly woman's womb and then go on being BOTH YOU and the baby?!!!!?...oh and I haven't forgotten that other dude the Holy Ghosty Spirity thing, who goes around sanctifying ( whatever that means)!
|
|
|
Post by clusium on May 23, 2019 13:26:47 GMT
How can he be his father when his father had sex (came upon) with Mary and she gave birth in a manger in Bethlehem? NOT possible. You don't plant yourself in some earthly woman's womb and then go on being BOTH YOU and the baby?!!!!?...oh and I haven't forgotten that other dude the Holy Ghosty Spirity thing, who goes around sanctifying ( whatever that means)! He Is God, but, not His Father. Read @nedkelly's & mslo79's earlier posts. You equate God with His Creation. God Is WHOLLY different than everything in the material universe, hence, He Is 3 Divine Persons, Existing In the One True God. God Is also everywhere, which means, He Is right in the very same room as you are, right now, and He Is right here in the very same room as I am, right now. That is not possible, for created beings, but, is for God, & likewise, He can Be 3 Divine Persons in the One Godhead.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2019 14:49:30 GMT
How did a thread on the Trinity end up being about knob cheese and fanny batter 🤷
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on May 23, 2019 18:27:05 GMT
You're eliding my main point, which is that there is considerable difference on theological points between those sects who do accept the Trinity. If the truth of Jesus' nature is as obvious as many diehard Xtians like to contend, then there should be no reason for this. Of course, there should also be no need for four separate accounts of Jesus' life, either--another point the average Xtian seems to have no especially satisfactory answer for. You asked who mainline Protestants were, & I answered the question. No, you didn't, as I didn't ask you "who mainline protestants were". I suggested you'd do well to define that term more precisely, as there are substantial groups of protestants who don't accept the Trinity, in response to your assertion that they virtually all do. My question concerned the very real differences these various Xtian sects have regarding theological points concerning it. If the nature of Jesus is as plain as his followers assert, why should there be all these differing interpretations? You failed to answer or even address this, as I suspect you can't--as many Xtians can't--give a satisfactory response.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on May 23, 2019 18:28:08 GMT
Which leaves intact Goz's original question, to wit: how can three beings exist in one deity? Your answer to this thus far has been no answer at all. I have answered the question. She just won't accept the answer. You've given a nonsense response that no thinking individual is going to--or is bound to accept--as an answer.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on May 23, 2019 18:31:50 GMT
It should be obvious to you why that's a poor analogy. It's not. It's a good analogy. Same with the example I used with time. Explain why you find this a good analogy. Start with the fact that you're attempting to define a non-material divinity via comparison to physical chemical compositions. If you can bend logic sufficiently to come up with a response that's in any way coherent to that, it should be entertaining to read at the very least.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on May 23, 2019 19:28:50 GMT
You asked who mainline Protestants were, & I answered the question. No, you didn't, as I didn't ask you "who mainline protestants were". I suggested you'd do well to define that term more precisely, as there are substantial groups of protestants who don't accept the Trinity, in response to your assertion that they virtually all do. My question concerned the very real differences these various Xtian sects have regarding theological points concerning it. If the nature of Jesus is as plain as his followers assert, why should there be all these differing interpretations? You failed to answer or even address this, as I suspect you can't--as many Xtians can't--give a satisfactory response. And I did define who the mainline Protestants were: Anglican (Episcopalian) Presbyeterian, Lutheran, etc.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on May 23, 2019 19:29:32 GMT
I have answered the question. She just won't accept the answer. You've given a nonsense response that no thinking individual is going to--or is bound to accept--as an answer. My response was not nonsensical.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on May 23, 2019 19:32:02 GMT
It's not. It's a good analogy. Same with the example I used with time. Explain why you find this a good analogy. Start with the fact that you're attempting to define a non-material divinity via comparison to physical chemical compositions. If you can bend logic sufficiently to come up with a response that's in any way coherent to that, it should be entertaining to read at the very least. It is precisely because God Is a non-material Entity, that a physical composition has to be used as an example. She asked how 3 can be 1, so I used H2O as an example of something that is 3 in 1.
|
|
|
Post by geode on May 23, 2019 20:49:55 GMT
Was the intent of this thread to reveal the failings of the concept of The Trinity? There really is no way to adequately explain how it is valid, as you have seen in this thread. I grew up in a non-Trinitarian Christian sect. Of course simply for not accepting the concept of The Trinity the Mormons are called non-Christians by many in the Trinitarian sects.
I had a pastor who once admitted to me that The Trinity dosn't really make sense, he said that it is just a construct to explain what humans are unable to comprehend. I don't think humans can really grasp something that is infinite. In my opinion The Trinity concept emerged after the time of Jesus and the Apostles. Christian leadership started to accept Jesus as divine, but they wished to still be monotheistic. The Trinity was an attempt to have both ideas at the same time. The concept of the Mormon Godhead attempts to do the same thing, but has three gods that are separate personages. Their critics claim they are polytheists, and when they are honest they will essentially admit this is true. Their tenuous way of still claiming to be monotheists is to place The Father higher than Jesus or the Holy Ghost. But if Trinitarians are honest they will admit that they are really polytheists as well, no matter how they attempt to cut it. Listen to them at Christmas and Easter they sound like the Father and the Son are totally separate. Press them on the nature of God and they attempt analogies that don't work at all.
Compared to Muslims and Jews, Christians really struggle to get a grasp on the nature of their God.
|
|
|
Post by goz on May 23, 2019 21:51:59 GMT
How can he be his father when his father had sex (came upon) with Mary and she gave birth in a manger in Bethlehem? NOT possible. You don't plant yourself in some earthly woman's womb and then go on being BOTH YOU and the baby?!!!!?...oh and I haven't forgotten that other dude the Holy Ghosty Spirity thing, who goes around sanctifying ( whatever that means)! He Is God, but, not His Father. Read @nedkelly 's & mslo79 's earlier posts. You equate God with His Creation. God Is WHOLLY different than everything in the material universe, hence, He Is 3 Divine Persons, Existing In the One True God. God Is also everywhere, which means, He Is right in the very same room as you are, right now, and He Is right here in the very same room as I am, right now. That is not possible, for created beings, but, is for God, & likewise, He can Be 3 Divine Persons in the One Godhead. OK. See my other thread about why did God NEED Jesus ( and I still don't understand ANY need for the other dude and his sanctifying business. ..butt his father is God and Ned said Jesus is purely human. It would be good if you Catholics could get your story straight, since apparently your lives depends upon it!
|
|
|
Post by goz on May 23, 2019 22:04:04 GMT
Was the intent of this thread to reveal the failings of the concept of The Trinity? There really is no way to adequately explain how it is valid, as you have seen in this thread. I grew up in a non-Trinitarian Christian sect. Of course simply for not accepting the concept of The Trinity the Mormons are called non-Christians by many in the Trinitarian sects. I had a pastor who once admitted to me that The Trinity dosn't really make sense, he said that it is just a construct to explain what humans are unable to comprehend. I don't think humans can really grasp something that is infinite. In my opinion The Trinity concept emerged after the time of Jesus and the Apostles. Christian leadership started to accept Jesus as divine, but they wished to still be monotheistic. The Trinity was an attempt to have both ideas at the same time. The concept of the Mormon Godhead attempts to do the same thing, but has three gods that are separate personages. Their critics claim they are polytheists, and when they are honest they will essentially admit this is true. Their tenuous way of still claiming to be monotheists is to place The Father higher than Jesus or the Holy Ghost. But if Trinitarians are honest they will admit that they are really polytheists as well, no matter how they attempt to cut it. Listen to them at Christmas and Easter they sound like the Father and the Son are totally separate. Press them on the nature of God and they attempt analogies that don't work at all. Compared to Muslims and Jews, Christians really struggle to get a grasp on the nature of their God. Good knowledgeable post HOWEVER I feel the need to answer your first question with what I just posted on another thread where my 'motives' were also brought into question. There are some Christians here who think that this Board is for religious discussion of THEIR faith on THEIR terms ( Erjenious I am looking at you and your mates) On a free public international forum I refuse to be questioned on my 'motives' for posting, just because many Christians /theists find it difficult to justify the answers that they give on this forum. The other point is that they don't 'have' to, if their belief is enough for them and they are secure enough in it. If they choose to enter the discussion, then it is fair to challenge everything written. This is not 'rocket surgery'!
|
|