Interesting Theory Regarding Trinity

[Neferet -House of Night-]

So me and friend were talking last night and came up with a theory. It's rather interesting really. We discussed the trinity and how the concept can't be monotheistic as people claim. No this theory isn't going to shake any beliefs as it's not proven or fact.

Anywho, we examined the Trinity and compared it to the Hindu God Ashura or Ashra. We all know that Ashra has 3 different faces showing 3 different emotions but has one body. Now examine the Trinity. You have YHVH, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Each one is a different side representing something different but they have one body. So why shouldn't Christianity be considered soft polytheism? Islam and Judaism view God as having one side, so why can't Christians?  

[promised_child]

actually they aren't three faces or personalities. ADONI is Ya, YSHW and KDSH because HE is all three. it isn't Polytheism. God just IS. He is the great I AM, the redeemer, the great physician, etc. Many names doesnt mean multiple personalities.  

[Crimson Raccoon]

Yeah, the three persons of the Trinity don't have different faces, and they don't have different personalities, or different emotions. They aren't different sides, and they don't really represent anything different from each other. It's one God working and manifesting himself in different ways, but he hasn't changed himself in any way; he's not different.

When you say you "examined" the Trinity, what do you mean? Do you mean you researched and read the passages in the Bible that illustrate and explain it, or that you read what Biblical scholars and theologians have written about it? Or... what? wink  

[Neferet -House of Night-]

Crimson Raccoon

Yeah, the three persons of the Trinity don't have different faces, and they don't have different personalities, or different emotions. They aren't different sides, and they don't really represent anything different from each other. It's one God working and manifesting himself in different ways, but he hasn't changed himself in any way; he's not different.

When you say you "examined" the Trinity, what do you mean? Do you mean you researched and read the passages in the Bible that illustrate and explain it, or that you read what Biblical scholars and theologians have written about it? Or... what? wink

Okay maybe using the Morrigan would've been better. xD

When I say examined I mean looked at people's interpretations of what the Trinity is or what is should.  

[iy8970970607]

promised_child

actually they aren't three faces or personalities. ADONI is Ya, YSHW and KDSH because HE is all three. it isn't Polytheism. God just IS. He is the great I AM, the redeemer, the great physician, etc. Many names doesnt mean multiple personalities.

No, the holy spirit, Jesus, and "God", are all separate entities.
If God spoke to Joshua, and God is Joshua, that would be a problem if God is Joshua.


So, either your God is crazy, or you are tri-theists.


I suppose the stigma of polythesism is a mental-link associated with pagans, whom were apart of pantheon-polythesism.  

[Crimson Raccoon]

Ephemeral Lazarus

No, the holy spirit, Jesus, and "God", are all separate entities.

What are you basing this on? The Bible clearly says God is one, Jesus and the father are one, and so on. If you believe in Jesus and the Holy Spirit, what do you base that belief on if not the Bible? Because the Bible teaches they are a single entity...

Ephemeral Lazarus

If God spoke to Joshua, and God is Joshua, that would be a problem if God is Joshua.

If God and Jesus were just simple humans, then yes in order for them to talk to each other they would have to be separate entities. But they are both God, and God does not have the same limitations that humans have. He doesn't have the same psyche, for sure.

When Jesus was a man, he took on limitations to himself that he wouldn't otherwise have had. As such, he as a human was depending on the Father the same way all humans depend on the Father. The Father and the Son are one, as Jesus plainly says numerous times, but when the Son became a physical human he had an aspect of himself that was limited which needed to stay in touch with his "unlimited" side, just as all humans need to stay in touch with God. That may not be the clearest explanation, but these things can't be explained in scientific terms; it is a religious faith, after all, and goes beyond naturalistic explanations. No religious belief can be simply explained in natural, scientific terms.

Also, remember that even in the Old Testament, God took counsel with himself. Genesis 1 shows him, yes, talking to himself. (Notice also that he uses the plural first person, "we" and "us.") So basically, yes God can talk to himself. He isn't limited like humans are, he is a completely different kind of entity and doesn't operate like we do.

Ephemeral Lazarus

So, either your God is crazy, or you are tri-theists.

Saying God is crazy because he has more than one "person" or because he talks to himself, is again defining him by human standards. He isn't human so we can't measure him by that standard, yes?

Ephemeral Lazarus

I suppose the stigma of polythesism is a mental-link associated with pagans, whom were apart of pantheon-polythesism.

I don't have any concern for stigma, I simply try to match my beliefs with what the Bible teaches. I assure you that I have no concern over how much or how little my faith has in common with any pagan faith; I am only concerned with believing the Truth, which I believe is given by God in the Bible. Pagan religions have some truth in them, after all Plato's philosophy had a huge impact on Christianity. I'm not going to disbelieve something just because it's pagan, I'm going to disbelieve it if it goes against the Bible. This is the way most Christians base their beliefs as well, I'm not unusual in it. The Bible teaches God is one, and works in different ways in the persons of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, who are united and have a single personality. So that's why we believe in one God; not out of reaction against pagan beliefs.

Upon research of Christian doctrine, it is easy to see that the way the Trinity operates is dramatically different from pantheism or polytheism. We shouldn't simply base our judgment of the Trinity on a kids' Sunday School level definition of it. I recommend doing some reading into how Christian theologians actually describe it. That is, if anyone is genuinely interested in learning about it before writing it off. Even qualified secular religious philosophers will for the most part agree that the Christian concept of the Trinity is not the same as polytheism.  

[Vasilius Konstantinos]

I tend to believe in what the Niceo-Constantinoplean Creed has to say about the Trinity:

I believe in one God, Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages;
Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten, not created, of one essence with the Father through Whom all things were made.
Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man.
He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried;
And He rose on the third day, according to the Scriptures.
He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father;
And He will come again with glory to judge the living and dead. His kingdom shall have no end.
And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Creator of life, Who proceeds from the Father, Who together with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified, Who spoke through the prophets.
In one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.
I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
I look for the resurrection of the dead
and the life of the age to come.
Amen.

Now another question to pose is not about the Trinity but the essence of Jesus being God AND Man. How can one explain that?  

[ferret658]

Now another question to pose is not about the Trinity but the essence of Jesus being God AND Man. How can one explain that?

Jesus was fully God and fully human. Being God, He does not need to follow the rules of our world, our solar system, and not even the universe. In the New Testament towards Revelation, it says something along the line of 1000 years is like a day to God. That ilustrates right there that God has no obligation to follow the laws of physics and logic that He created when He created everything else.  

[promised_child]

Crimson Raccoon

Ephemeral Lazarus

No, the holy spirit, Jesus, and "God", are all separate entities.

What are you basing this on? The Bible clearly says God is one, Jesus and the father are one, and so on. If you believe in Jesus and the Holy Spirit, what do you base that belief on if not the Bible? Because the Bible teaches they are a single entity...

Ephemeral Lazarus

If God spoke to Joshua, and God is Joshua, that would be a problem if God is Joshua.

If God and Jesus were just simple humans, then yes in order for them to talk to each other they would have to be separate entities. But they are both God, and God does not have the same limitations that humans have. He doesn't have the same psyche, for sure.

When Jesus was a man, he took on limitations to himself that he wouldn't otherwise have had. As such, he as a human was depending on the Father the same way all humans depend on the Father. The Father and the Son are one, as Jesus plainly says numerous times, but when the Son became a physical human he had an aspect of himself that was limited which needed to stay in touch with his "unlimited" side, just as all humans need to stay in touch with God. That may not be the clearest explanation, but these things can't be explained in scientific terms; it is a religious faith, after all, and goes beyond naturalistic explanations. No religious belief can be simply explained in natural, scientific terms.

Also, remember that even in the Old Testament, God took counsel with himself. Genesis 1 shows him, yes, talking to himself. (Notice also that he uses the plural first person, "we" and "us.") So basically, yes God can talk to himself. He isn't limited like humans are, he is a completely different kind of entity and doesn't operate like we do.

Ephemeral Lazarus

So, either your God is crazy, or you are tri-theists.

Saying God is crazy because he has more than one "person" or because he talks to himself, is again defining him by human standards. He isn't human so we can't measure him by that standard, yes?

Ephemeral Lazarus

I suppose the stigma of polythesism is a mental-link associated with pagans, whom were apart of pantheon-polythesism.

I don't have any concern for stigma, I simply try to match my beliefs with what the Bible teaches. I assure you that I have no concern over how much or how little my faith has in common with any pagan faith; I am only concerned with believing the Truth, which I believe is given by God in the Bible. Pagan religions have some truth in them, after all Plato's philosophy had a huge impact on Christianity. I'm not going to disbelieve something just because it's pagan, I'm going to disbelieve it if it goes against the Bible. This is the way most Christians base their beliefs as well, I'm not unusual in it. The Bible teaches God is one, and works in different ways in the persons of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, who are united and have a single personality. So that's why we believe in one God; not out of reaction against pagan beliefs.

Upon research of Christian doctrine, it is easy to see that the way the Trinity operates is dramatically different from pantheism or polytheism. We shouldn't simply base our judgment of the Trinity on a kids' Sunday School level definition of it. I recommend doing some reading into how Christian theologians actually describe it. That is, if anyone is genuinely interested in learning about it before writing it off. Even qualified secular religious philosophers will for the most part agree that the Christian concept of the Trinity is not the same as polytheism.

thank you. God really cant be defined by human forms. Humans have weird ideas about divinity  

[lordstar]

promised_child

thank you. God really cant be defined by human forms. Humans have weird ideas about divinity

Saying that something is undifinable is to say it does not exist

thus I think it better to say that God can be difined, however, God has not been diffined  

[Crimson Raccoon]

lordstar

promised_child

thank you. God really cant be defined by human forms. Humans have weird ideas about divinity

Saying that something is undifinable is to say it does not exist

thus I think it better to say that God can be difined, however, God has not been diffined

Nobody here said God was undefinable. We said he isn't defined the way humans are defined. That is, saying "God is crazy if he talks to himself" is limiting God to human definitions, and that can't be done because God isn't human. Nobody's saying God is totally undefinable. The Bible has lots of descriptions of God. God is definable, and he has been defined in detail in the Bible.

This page quoted below does a decent job, putting a large number of verses together to come up with a description of God. It gives about 50 pertinent verses with it's description, so it makes for a good reference. (The actual page gives you the Bible verses to read, the link to it is at the bottom.)

Quote:

The Bible, God’s Word, tells us what God is like and what He is not like. Without the authority of the Bible, any attempt to explain God’s attributes would be no better than an opinion, which by itself is often incorrect, especially in understanding God (Job 42:7). To say that it is important for us to try to understand what God is like is a huge understatement. Failure to do so can cause us to set up, chase after, and worship false gods contrary to His will (Exodus 20:3-5).

Only what God has chosen to reveal of Himself can be known. One of God's attributes or qualities is “light,” meaning that He is self-revealing in information of Himself (Isaiah 60:19; James 1:17). The fact that God has revealed knowledge of Himself should not be neglected (Hebrews 4:1). Creation, the Bible, and the Word made flesh (Jesus Christ) will help us to know what God is like.

Let's start by understanding that God is our Creator and that we are a part of His creation (Genesis 1:1; Psalm 24:1) and are created in His image. Man is above the rest of creation and was given dominion over it (Genesis 1:26-28 ). Creation is marred by the fall but still offers a glimpse of God’s works (Genesis 3:17-18; Romans 1:19-20). By considering creation's vastness, complexity, beauty, and order, we can have a sense of the awesomeness of God.

Reading through some of the names of God can be helpful in our search of what God is like. They are as follows:

Elohim - strong One, divine (Genesis 1:1)
Adonai - Lord, indicating a Master-to-servant relationship (Exodus 4:10, 13)
El Elyon - Most High, the strongest One (Genesis 14:20)
El Roi - the strong One who sees (Genesis 16:13)
El Shaddai - Almighty God (Genesis 17:1)
El Olam - Everlasting God (Isaiah 40:28 )
Yahweh - LORD “I Am,” meaning the eternal self-existent God (Exodus 3:13, 14).

God is eternal, meaning He had no beginning and His existence will never end. He is immortal and infinite (Deuteronomy 33:27; Psalm 90:2; 1 Timothy 1:17). God is immutable, meaning He is unchanging; this in turn means that God is absolutely reliable and trustworthy (Malachi 3:6; Numbers 23:19; Psalm 102:26, 27). God is incomparable; there is no one like Him in works or being. He is unequaled and perfect (2 Samuel 7:22; Psalm 86:8; Isaiah 40:25; Matthew 5:48 ). God is inscrutable, unfathomable, unsearchable, and past finding out as far as understanding Him completely (Isaiah 40:28; Psalm 145:3; Romans 11:33, 34).

God is just; He is no respecter of persons in the sense of showing favoritism (Deuteronomy 32:4; Psalm 18:30). God is omnipotent; He is all-powerful and can do anything that pleases Him, but His actions will always be in accord with the rest of His character (Revelation 19:6; Jeremiah 32:17, 27). God is omnipresent, meaning He is present everywhere, but this does not mean that God is everything (Psalm 139:7-13; Jeremiah 23:23). God is omniscient, meaning He knows the past, present, and future, including what we are thinking at any given moment. Since He knows everything, His justice will always be administered fairly (Psalm 139:1-5; Proverbs 5:21).

God is one; not only is there no other, but He is alone in being able to meet the deepest needs and longings of our hearts. God alone is worthy of our worship and devotion (Deuteronomy 6:4). God is righteous, meaning that God cannot and will not pass over wrongdoing. It is because of God’s righteousness and justice that, in order for our sins to be forgiven, Jesus had to experience God's wrath when our sins were placed upon Him (Exodus 9:27; Matthew 27:45-46; Romans 3:21-26).

God is sovereign, meaning He is supreme. All of His creation put together cannot thwart His purposes (Psalm 93:1; 95:3; Jeremiah 23:20). God is spirit, meaning He is invisible (John 1:18; 4:24). God is a Trinity. He is three in one, the same in substance, equal in power and glory. God is truth, He will remain incorruptible and cannot lie (Psalm 117:2; 1 Samuel 15:29).

God is holy, separated from all moral defilement and hostile toward it. God sees all evil and it angers Him. God is referred to as a consuming fire (Isaiah 6:3; Habakkuk 1:13; Exodus 3:2, 4-5; Hebrews 12:29). God is gracious, and His grace includes His goodness, kindness, mercy, and love. If it were not for God's grace, His holiness would exclude us from His presence. Thankfully, this is not the case, for He desires to know each of us personally (Exodus 34:6; Psalm 31:19; 1 Peter 1:3; John 3:16, 17:3).

Since God is an infinite Being, no human can fully answer this God-sized question, but through God’s Word, we can understand much about who God is and what He is like. May we all wholeheartedly continue to seek after Him (Jeremiah 29:13).

- from www.gotquestions.org/attributes-God.html

 

[lordstar]

the quote in your post clearly says "God really cant be defined by human forms"

after your fist two sentences you no longer address my comment


Fail. Please try again  

[Crimson Raccoon]

lordstar

the quote in your post clearly says "God really cant be defined by human forms"

after your fist two sentences you no longer address my comment


Fail. Please try again

Have I been insulting to you? You seem to view this as some kind of conflict of egos, by your attempts at bashing mine. I'm not trying to argue with you, I'm just interested in having a discussion. I'm sorry if I said something that came of as antagonistic, it wasn't my intention.

For the quote from promised_child, "God really can't be defined by human forms," I think you misunderstood what she meant. She didn't mean that God can't be defined by humans, she meant by "human forms" that he can't be defined in the standards of being human. Unless of course, I misunderstood her and she can correct me. But her post was an agreement to mine before it, which said just that: not that God can't be defined by humans, but he can't be defined by human limitations, or limited to "human forms," in her words. My post makes it more clear, hers was just a response, not really a full explanation.

I don't know what you mean that I didn't address your comment after my first two sentences. Is that really something to argue about anyway? Are your comments the entire basis of this discussion? But in any case, I felt I fully addressed your comment; since your comment was simply:

1. "Saying that something is undifinable is to say it does not exist,"
which I responded to by saying that our posts never claimed God was undefinable in the first place; and
2. Your statement that "God can be difined, however, God has not been diffined,"
which I responded to by disagreeing and saying "God has been defined in detail in the Bible," and following up with a resource giving that description based on the Bible.

How is that not addressing your comment? Considering your post was two sentences long, wouldn't a two sentence response be appropriate? And I gave more than that anyway. If you disagreed with it, by all means, state your case, my friend.  

[lordstar]

Crimson Raccoon

lordstar

the quote in your post clearly says "God really cant be defined by human forms"

after your fist two sentences you no longer address my comment


Fail. Please try again

Have I been insulting to you? You seem to view this as some kind of conflict of egos, by your attempts at bashing mine. I'm not trying to argue with you, I'm just interested in having a discussion. I'm sorry if I said something that came of as antagonistic, it wasn't my intention.

For the quote from promised_child, "God really can't be defined by human forms," I think you misunderstood what she meant. She didn't mean that God can't be defined by humans, she meant by "human forms" that he can't be defined in the standards of being human. Unless of course, I misunderstood her and she can correct me. But her post was an agreement to mine before it, which said just that: not that God can't be defined by humans, but he can't be defined by human limitations, or limited to "human forms," in her words. My post makes it more clear, hers was just a response, not really a full explanation.

I don't know what you mean that I didn't address your comment after my first two sentences. Is that really something to argue about anyway? Are your comments the entire basis of this discussion? But in any case, I felt I fully addressed your comment; since your comment was simply:

1. "Saying that something is undifinable is to say it does not exist,"
which I responded to by saying that our posts never claimed God was undefinable in the first place; and
2. Your statement that "God can be difined, however, God has not been diffined,"
which I responded to by disagreeing and saying "God has been defined in detail in the Bible," and following up with a resource giving that description based on the Bible.

How is that not addressing your comment? Considering your post was two sentences long, wouldn't a two sentence response be appropriate? And I gave more than that anyway. If you disagreed with it, by all means, state your case, my friend.

you have insulted me in another thread, however there is no need to apolagize seeing as my irrational flaming for your face did make me feel better. I do appreciate the effort.

as for the post about deffinition by human forms
God can be diffined in the standards of being human although I never said that deffinition would be right or wrong.

Something you may want to know about me
I don't like to work in absolutes hence the above

I see where the confusion starts

you see I quoted her...as in I was talking to her and only to her (I tend to quote people I am addressing in seperate posts)

and then you quoted that stran of the conversation which did not address your previous post

so when I went off on you for getting off topic
you were off topic

if you are going to address someone else you need to say so
and if you are going to address the main topic you need to say so

now in quoting me
you and I were entered into a conversation
you and I were discussing
and although you did adress my post you also added a ton of stuff that had nothing to do with what we were talking about

and now you take my words out of context
I said "I think it better to say that God can be difined, however, God has not been diffined"

that is way different than "God can be difined, however, God has not been diffined"

its like pointing out someones poor grammer and then being flamed for the comment itself

do you see what i'm saying here

context context context
by now you must have read my other comment and now know to include context when quoting me

but hey you got #1 spot on
however I was pointing out the use of an absolute and not debating the topic  

[Crimson Raccoon]

lordstar

Crimson Raccoon

lordstar

the quote in your post clearly says "God really cant be defined by human forms"

after your fist two sentences you no longer address my comment


Fail. Please try again

Have I been insulting to you? You seem to view this as some kind of conflict of egos, by your attempts at bashing mine. I'm not trying to argue with you, I'm just interested in having a discussion. I'm sorry if I said something that came of as antagonistic, it wasn't my intention.

For the quote from promised_child, "God really can't be defined by human forms," I think you misunderstood what she meant. She didn't mean that God can't be defined by humans, she meant by "human forms" that he can't be defined in the standards of being human. Unless of course, I misunderstood her and she can correct me. But her post was an agreement to mine before it, which said just that: not that God can't be defined by humans, but he can't be defined by human limitations, or limited to "human forms," in her words. My post makes it more clear, hers was just a response, not really a full explanation.

I don't know what you mean that I didn't address your comment after my first two sentences. Is that really something to argue about anyway? Are your comments the entire basis of this discussion? But in any case, I felt I fully addressed your comment; since your comment was simply:

1. "Saying that something is undifinable is to say it does not exist,"
which I responded to by saying that our posts never claimed God was undefinable in the first place; and
2. Your statement that "God can be difined, however, God has not been diffined,"
which I responded to by disagreeing and saying "God has been defined in detail in the Bible," and following up with a resource giving that description based on the Bible.

How is that not addressing your comment? Considering your post was two sentences long, wouldn't a two sentence response be appropriate? And I gave more than that anyway. If you disagreed with it, by all means, state your case, my friend.

you have insulted me in another thread, however there is no need to apolagize seeing as my irrational flaming for your face did make me feel better. I do appreciate the effort.

as for the post about deffinition by human forms
God can be diffined in the standards of being human although I never said that deffinition would be right or wrong.

Something you may want to know about me
I don't like to work in absolutes hence the above

I see where the confusion starts

you see I quoted her...as in I was talking to her and only to her (I tend to quote people I am addressing in seperate posts)

and then you quoted that stran of the conversation which did not address your previous post

so when I went off on you for getting off topic
you were off topic

if you are going to address someone else you need to say so
and if you are going to address the main topic you need to say so

now in quoting me
you and I were entered into a conversation
you and I were discussing
and although you did adress my post you also added a ton of stuff that had nothing to do with what we were talking about

and now you take my words out of context
I said "I think it better to say that God can be difined, however, God has not been diffined"

that is way different than "God can be difined, however, God has not been diffined"

its like pointing out someones poor grammer and then being flamed for the comment itself

do you see what i'm saying here

context context context
by now you must have read my other comment and now know to include context when quoting me

but hey you got #1 spot on
however I was pointing out the use of an absolute and not debating the topic

Ok.... I'm kind of confused, I had a hard time following all of what you meant there. I guess it's not a big deal though since it seems to be all cleared up??

A couple things though. You say I insulted you in another thread. Where did this happen? I don't remember doing so, and I certainly never had the intention to. Perhaps you confused me with someone else? Do you mind pointing out where I insulted you?

Lastly,

lordstar

and now you take my words out of context
I said "I think it better to say that God can be difined, however, God has not been diffined"

that is way different than "God can be difined, however, God has not been diffined"

its like pointing out someones poor grammer and then being flamed for the comment itself

I didn't mean to quote you out of context, and I obviously wasn't trying to flame you. I guess I just misunderstood you. Which probably explains why you saw my post as off-topic. Sorry.