(February 1, 2018 at 6:12 am)Grandizer Wrote:

(January 31, 2018 at 9:17 pm)SteveII Wrote: While I doubt your intentions are for mutual understanding, here goes...

I've been there before (believing in the Trinity and defending it back as a Christian). Nothing further for me to understand. This is more of a challenge for theists to step up to the stage and give me their best shot at defending the Trinity as logical. That's if you're a Trinitarian Christian, I mean.

Judging from your posts in general, if you thought you understood a Christian doctrine "back in the day", then it is almost certain that you did not. As is the case here.

Quote:

Quote:Your Father, Son, Holy Spirit statements are wrong and an obvious attempt to write into your question your conclusion.

Bullshit. This is mainstream Trinitarian belief. If you have a different conception of the Trinity, then that's your choice, but it doesn't reflect the traditional conception of the Trinity.

Everything I have said is consistent with a standard view on the Trinity. Nothing you said is. From the very first paragraph of the Wikipedia article:

Quote:The Christian doctrine of the Trinity (Latin: Trinitas, lit. 'triad', from trinus, "threefold")[2] holds that God is three consubstantial persons[3] or hypostases[4]—the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit—as "one God in three Divine Persons". The three Persons are distinct, yet are one "substance, essence or nature" (homoousios).[5] In this context, a "nature" is what one is, whereas a "person" is who one is.[6][7][8] The opposing view is referred to as Nontrinitarianism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity

Quote:

Quote:God is one thing. One soul. Even saying Jesus is God is technically wrong because Jesus =/= God. The Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit = God.

Oh, I see, another heretic.

Join Huggy's club then.

I will grant that Huggy is not describing the traditional concept of the trinity. 

Quote:

Quote:God is a soul. What is a soul? The soul or mind is an immaterial or spiritual substance that makes you you (the "I" when you refer to yourself). It is not equal to your brain but relies on it in our present state much like a computer software relies on computer hardware. The soul holds our consciousness, which includes our intellect and volition which allow us to be self-reflective and capable of self determination. I believe like J. P. Moreland that there are various type of souls--from a basic animal with simple reasoning abilities to Chimpanzees with richer capabilities, to humans with even more, to God at the pinnacle.

We experience that each of us has a soul/mind equipped with advanced rational cognitive faculties that we say is sufficient for personhood. God is one soul with three complete sets of rational cognitive faculties with three centers of self-consciousness, intentionality, and will. One immaterial soul containing three distinct persons. There are interesting attributes this creates like God is a relational being and is capable of relational interactions--even within himself (much like we are better people having relationships with other persons).

But other persons I have relationships with and I are not one and the same being, are we? Furthermore, even if we were all the same being, then how can this be if I am not any of them, and none of them are me?

No, you and your buddies are not the same person. Neither is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. You are not going to find a perfect analogy--there isn't one. 

Quote:Of course, if you don't accept the mainstream conception of the Trinity, then what I'm arguing here won't apply, but then you're NOT a mainstream Trinitarian Christian. And if you say that Jesus being God is wrong, then that would be a heresy according to the mainstream Christian circles.

As I pointed out above, I am mainstream--just more detailed because I thought you wanted to have a discussion.

I never said that "Jesus being God is wrong". I said that you "technically" can't say that Jesus = God. A component does not equal its whole. 

Quote:

Quote:While I am not going to say this is the absolute right way to view the trinity, it does counter any claims of being incoherent or illogical.

The way you're arguing this, sure. But that's not the Trinity conception described in the OP, which is based on mainstream Christian belief (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant).

Like I said above, it is you who don't understand even what the mainstream concept is.

OK, so now that we have the "official" word on the trinity, perhaps you can explain why any sane person over the age of ten should believe such palpable nonsense.

(February 1, 2018 at 7:18 am)Grandizer Wrote: From the Nicene Creed, which all mainstream Christians are to believe in if they want to avoid being called heretics.

Quote:We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
one in Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation,
he came down from heaven:

As you can see, it clearly says Jesus is God. So SteveII saying my description of the Trinity is wrong because I said such things as the Son is fully the one God, is not supported by the Nicene Creed itself. If SteveII himself does not follow that Creed, that doesn't change the fact that most other Christians do, and it doesn't mean that my description in the OP is wrong.

Actually it says exactly what I said: that Jesus is part of God. If you go to the other parts of the Nicene Creed, you will see that the Father and the Holy Spirit described as part of God too. Read it in its entirety and carefully, it's all there. Clearly all three are described as God.

I'd like to say that I'd expect a believer to have a more complete view of christology, but that wouldn't be true.  They're predictably interested in their own cults christology t the exclusion of others.  

The nicene creed was specifically formulated for a cultural syncretism of the triune god peculiar to catholicism in the 300's.  It nevertheless remains the fact that the majority of christians do not believe in the trinity, or accept that the divine can be meaningfully split into pieces.  To them, god is whole and unviolable and one, not three.  Jesus -is- god, not a part of god. Cutting the baby in half, or in this case..thirds... is the inherent paganism in christianity talking...and that was the whole point of making the creed formal anyway..even if it can't help but drink from the same well. It's a meaningfully self refuting statement of faith, but that's the nature of faith.

(February 1, 2018 at 11:55 am)SteveII Wrote:

(February 1, 2018 at 6:12 am)Grandizer Wrote: I've been there before (believing in the Trinity and defending it back as a Christian). Nothing further for me to understand. This is more of a challenge for theists to step up to the stage and give me their best shot at defending the Trinity as logical. That's if you're a Trinitarian Christian, I mean.

Judging from your posts in general, if you thought you understood a Christian doctrine "back in the day", then it is almost certain that you did not. As is the case here.

The authority on the Christian faith thus speaketh, the one who believes Jesus is only a part of God.

Quote:Everything I have said is consistent with a standard view on the Trinity. Nothing you said is. From the very first paragraph of the Wikipedia article:

Quote:The Christian doctrine of the Trinity (Latin: Trinitas, lit. 'triad', from trinus, "threefold")[2] holds that God is three consubstantial persons[3] or hypostases[4]—the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit—as "one God in three Divine Persons". The three Persons are distinct, yet are one "substance, essence or nature" (homoousios).[5] In this context, a "nature" is what one is, whereas a "person" is who one is.[6][7][8] The opposing view is referred to as Nontrinitarianism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity

Not that Wikipedia is the go-to source for a complicated topic like this, but nevertheless, here's what the next paragraph which you did not quote says:

Quote:According to this central mystery of most Christian faiths, there is only one God in three Persons: while distinct from one another in their relations of origin (as the Fourth Council of the Lateran declared, "it is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds")[9] and in their relations with one another, they are stated to be one in all else, co-equal, co-eternal and consubstantial, and each is God, whole and entire.[10]

Note the bold. This is contrary to what you believe. If each Person of God is just a part of God, then none of them are God, whole and entire.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church itself (again, note the bold):

Quote: 253 The Trinity is One. We do not confess three Gods, but one God in three persons, the "consubstantial Trinity".83 The divine persons do not share the one divinity among themselves but each of them is God whole and entire: "The Father is that which the Son is, the Son that which the Father is, the Father and the Son that which the Holy Spirit is, i.e. by nature one God."84 In the words of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), "Each of the persons is that supreme reality, viz., the divine substance, essence or nature."85

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/ar...s2c1p2.htm

---

(February 1, 2018 at 12:11 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(February 1, 2018 at 7:18 am)Grandizer Wrote: From the Nicene Creed, which all mainstream Christians are to believe in if they want to avoid being called heretics.


As you can see, it clearly says Jesus is God. So SteveII saying my description of the Trinity is wrong because I said such things as the Son is fully the one God, is not supported by the Nicene Creed itself. If SteveII himself does not follow that Creed, that doesn't change the fact that most other Christians do, and it doesn't mean that my description in the OP is wrong.

Actually it says exactly what I said: that Jesus is part of God. If you go to the other parts of the Nicene Creed, you will see that the Father and the Holy Spirit described as part of God too. Read it in its entirety and carefully, it's all there. Clearly all three are described as God.

Where? Are we reading the same thing? Jesus is true God, not a part of the true God.

---

(February 1, 2018 at 1:07 pm)Khemikal Wrote: I'd like to say that I'd expect a believer to have a more complete view of christology, but that wouldn't be true.  They're predictably interested in their own cults christology t the exclusion of others.  

The nicene creed was specifically formulated for a cultural syncretism of the triune god peculiar to catholicism in the 300's.  It nevertheless remains the fact that the majority of christians do not believe in the trinity, or accept that the divine can be meaningfully split into pieces.  To them, god is whole and unviolable and one, not three.  Jesus -is- god, not a part of god.  Cutting the baby in half, or in this case..thirds... is the inherent paganism in christianity talking...and that was the whole point of making the creed formal anyway..even if it can't help but drink from the same well.  It's a meaningfully self refuting statement of faith, but that's the nature of faith.

It's convoluted mess, that's for sure. That's the point of the OP.

Quote:This is John we're talking about. The last thing you want to do is take what he says literally. After all, do you literally eat Jesus and drink his blood when doing the Communion?

The fucking catholicks swear that you do.

(February 1, 2018 at 4:07 pm)Grandizer Wrote: It's convoluted mess, that's for sure. That's the point of the OP.

The doctrine itself may be, but the explanation for why it is so is fairly straightforward and very well evidenced.

(February 1, 2018 at 4:07 pm)Grandizer Wrote:

(February 1, 2018 at 11:55 am)SteveII Wrote: Judging from your posts in general, if you thought you understood a Christian doctrine "back in the day", then it is almost certain that you did not. As is the case here.

The authority on the Christian faith thus speaketh, the one who believes Jesus is only a part of God.

Quote:Everything I have said is consistent with a standard view on the Trinity. Nothing you said is. From the very first paragraph of the Wikipedia article:

Not that Wikipedia is the go-to source for a complicated topic like this, but nevertheless, here's what the next paragraph which you did not quote says:

Quote:According to this central mystery of most Christian faiths, there is only one God in three Persons: while distinct from one another in their relations of origin (as the Fourth Council of the Lateran declared, "it is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds")[9] and in their relations with one another, they are stated to be one in all else, co-equal, co-eternal and consubstantial, and each is God, whole and entire.[10]

Note the bold. This is contrary to what you believe. If each Person of God is just a part of God, then none of them are God, whole and entire.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church itself (again, note the bold):

Quote: 253 The Trinity is One. We do not confess three Gods, but one God in three persons, the "consubstantial Trinity".83 The divine persons do not share the one divinity among themselves but each of them is God whole and entire: "The Father is that which the Son is, the Son that which the Father is, the Father and the Son that which the Holy Spirit is, i.e. by nature one God."84 In the words of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), "Each of the persons is that supreme reality, viz., the divine substance, essence or nature."85

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/ar...s2c1p2.htm

Did it occur to you that you had to skip over phrase after phrase that says what you don't want it to say to get to one you could construe as support. Note the RED. At the tail end of all these clear statements (literally) that God is one thing in three persons, only then do both references include phrases to emphasize that God is inseparable into the three parts. That is all you are seeing here--God is inseparable and not complete without the three persons--two sides of the same coin.  

Quote:

---

(February 1, 2018 at 12:11 pm)SteveII Wrote: Actually it says exactly what I said: that Jesus is part of God. If you go to the other parts of the Nicene Creed, you will see that the Father and the Holy Spirit described as part of God too. Read it in its entirety and carefully, it's all there. Clearly all three are described as God.

Where? Are we reading the same thing? Jesus is true God, not a part of the true God.

Yes, 'consubstantial' means of one substance with the Father (or in your version of the creed: "One in Being"). Now, if we say something shares the same substance (or is "one in being") with something else, we say that the first thing, along with the second thing are part of something--in this case God.

Sounds like a bunch of geeks arguing about the nature of superman vis-a-vis his alter ego clark kent..to me. Are they the same person? Two people in one? Two people wholly separate but sharing the same essence™? Is it a mystery™?

Um.............let's see.................. there is Clark Kent, Superman and Astral Projection Superman.

Edit: Shit, 2/3 ninja'd.