The trinity

[DeistPaladin]

There aren't enough flowers in the world for that.

I was just thinking I should have added, "It's not working". Thanks.

[Drich]

...he said before totally misrepresenting post 116. (bold emphasis added)
Notice how he first ignores the "even if..."

Kinda how you omitted the entire first half of 116 to direct it towards me. which btw was orginally written to someone else entirly. I call you dishonest because you brought 116 to my attention as if it were a post of yours I intentionally ignored. When in fact it was cobbled together to address someone else's position on the trinity.

I guess now we know what the flower avatar is for. To cover the stink of his bullshit.

I grew those outside of my house for my wife, in our darkest hour. That one was the tallest and grew to almost 15 feet. That flower is a constant reminder of the grace and forgiveness shown me, on each and every post I send. so when I come here and have been wrong by one of you. I am reminded daily to show an equal amount a grace patience and forgiveness to those who can not, or pride will not allow them to ask for it. this giant Sunflower is what remindes me to give people my time effort and energy that do not deserve it. For when that flower grew I did not deserve the Grace, Patience, and forgiveness I received.

[Godscreated]

---

Answered in verse 30. You guys love to pick and choose the bible apart and have made very compelling arguments in the tiny little corners of the bible you focus on. However your arguments come completely unraveled when placed in context. Try reading your passages in a context that include verse 30.

---

They're not "little corners" you patronising, grossly misinformed little man. The references to God as a singular individual undeniably make up the bulk of the Bible.
John 10:30, New International Version "I and the Father are one."
Explain the evidence you drew upon to translate this into "I and the Father are in a special organization called God" as opposed to some type of poetic symbolism.

The underlined statement is not correct, God is called elohiym in most of the OT. Elohiym is a plural expression, as in the Trinity. In Genesis 3:22 Then the LORD God said, " Behold the man has become like one of Us.... here God was not talking to the angels, He was relating to the rest of the Godhead, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. In Genesis chapter one it says, the Spirit of God moved over the waters...God in this verse is called elohiym, again reference to the plural or Trinity. In John, Christ is called the Word and the Word is God . In Col. 2:9 For in Christ all the fulness of Deity dwells in bodily form. With these verses you can see that God is a trinity which was established at the beginning of creation, also Christ is realized as the Deity even in the flesh. Now how God is able to do this I do not know, but we can see that the Three are all in one place when Jesus was baptized, one God in the three Persons.

[Reforged]

They're not "little corners" you patronising, grossly misinformed little man. The references to God as a singular individual undeniably make up the bulk of the Bible.
John 10:30, New International Version "I and the Father are one."
Explain the evidence you drew upon to translate this into "I and the Father are in a special organization called God" as opposed to some type of poetic symbolism.

The underlined statement is not correct, God is called elohiym in most of the OT. Elohiym is a plural expression, as in the Trinity. In Genesis 3:22 Then the LORD God said, " Behold the man has become like one of Us.... here God was not talking to the angels, He was relating to the rest of the Godhead, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. In Genesis chapter one it says, the Spirit of God moved over the waters...God in this verse is called elohiym, again reference to the plural or Trinity. In John, Christ is called the Word and the Word is God . In Col. 2:9 For in Christ all the fulness of Deity dwells in bodily form. With these verses you can see that God is a trinity which was established at the beginning of creation, also Christ is realized as the Deity even in the flesh. Now how God is able to do this I do not know, but we can see that the Three are all in one place when Jesus was baptized, one God in the three Persons.

Now explain to me how this counters my assertion that hes refered to in the singular in the *bulk* of the Bible. Notice I didn't say *all* of it, the majority of it and it is undeniably the majority. If Christianity was to follow every verse regardless of whether it suits them then not only would it be even more conflicted and confused than it already is but it'd also be for the idea of bringing slavery back and stoning unruly children. Suffice to say modern society doesn't do either and I don't think you'd suggest that it should. Seeing as this is the case how can you deny this redefinition of God as nothing more than another instance of someone selectively pickng Bible verses that are pleasing to them? Also, if this is the case how is your religion any different from an evolved and concealed form of paganism?

"Now how God is able to do this I do not know, but we can see that the Three are all in one place when Jesus was baptized, one God in the three Persons."
Very simple explaination here, he didn't. The only reason you think he did is because you think every word of the Bible is true but find the concept of the Trinity ridiculous, which it is. Suffice to say there are far older religions than Christianity who coined the term "God" long before you or Christianity even existed. It means an omnipotent being of infinite power and if you state there are actually three seperate entities who fit this description you are saying there are three Gods which counters the Bibles assertion there is only one God. You do not get a special entitlement to redefine the meaning of words that are hundreds of times older than you are and have remained unchanged for that period of time.

[DeistPaladin]

Kinda how you omitted the entire first half of 116 to direct it towards me. which btw was orginally written to someone else entirly. I call you dishonest because you brought 116 to my attention as if it were a post of yours I intentionally ignored. When in fact it was cobbled together to address someone else's position on the trinity.

Actually, it was originally from post #108...

(sorry Dirch, but there's no "equality" here between the parts).

...which was a reference to post #1...

Three distinct separate but equals deities but only One God.

...which you acknowledged and spuriously dismissed in post #117...

Has been rightfully been found to be an invalid conclusion, to support your arguement.

...and I called on you to address that problem in #128...

Still waiting for you to explain how Jesus is "equal" to Yahweh given the Bible verses I quoted.

...and again in #131...

And STILL waiting for you to answer the other problem, how the Synoptics depict a Jesus subordinate to his father-god.

...and again in #135...

Any progress yet on the Synoptic verses I provided? Get back to me on that sometime, won't you?

...to which you responded in #136...

You mean the mess of miss-quotes of Isa and John?

They weren't mis-quotes (I quoted directly) but let that go. Isaiah and John weren't from the Synoptic Gospels and they didn't address the problem of your assertions of "equality" contrasted with the Synoptic depictions.

As a Christian apologist, amateur or otherwise, I'm astonished you don't understand what the word "Synoptic" means. Given your behavior, I can only assume you were being evasive.

To be clear, since you seem to enjoy red herring evasion, we're done debating whether 3 deities = polytheism. I spent way too much time trying to educate you on that point. We're now on the "equality" part of your original assertion from the OP. How do you reconcile that assertion in light of the depiction of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels, using examples of verses I quoted.

*Sounds of hammering as I nail you down to that topic*

[Epimethean]

It is like nailing down snot: It'll just keep dripping until it dries and flakes away.

[Reforged]

Kinda how you omitted the entire first half of 116 to direct it towards me. which btw was orginally written to someone else entirly. I call you dishonest because you brought 116 to my attention as if it were a post of yours I intentionally ignored. When in fact it was cobbled together to address someone else's position on the trinity.

Actually, it was originally from post #108...

(sorry Dirch, but there's no "equality" here between the parts).

...which was a reference to post #1...

Three distinct separate but equals deities but only One God.

...which you acknowledged and spuriously dismissed in post #117...

Has been rightfully been found to be an invalid conclusion, to support your arguement.

...and I called on you to address that problem in #128...

Still waiting for you to explain how Jesus is "equal" to Yahweh given the Bible verses I quoted.

...and again in #131...

And STILL waiting for you to answer the other problem, how the Synoptics depict a Jesus subordinate to his father-god.

...and again in #135...

Any progress yet on the Synoptic verses I provided? Get back to me on that sometime, won't you?

...to which you responded in #136...

You mean the mess of miss-quotes of Isa and John?

They weren't mis-quotes (I quoted directly) but let that go. Isaiah and John weren't from the Synoptic Gospels and they didn't address the problem of your assertions of "equality" contrasted with the Synoptic depictions.

As a Christian apologist, amateur or otherwise, I'm astonished you don't understand what the word "Synoptic" means. Given your behavior, I can only assume you were being evasive.

To be clear, since you seem to enjoy red herring evasion, we're done debating whether 3 deities = polytheism. I spent way too much time trying to educate you on that point. We're now on the "equality" part of your original assertion from the OP. How do you reconcile that assertion in light of the depiction of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels, using examples of verses I quoted.

*Sounds of hammering as I nail you down to that topic*

That was so made of win I felt like lighting a cigarette afterwards.

[Neo-Scholastic]

You mean you don't believe in the Great Pumpkin either! Next you'll be denying Cecil the Sea Serpent.

[BeeDeePee]

Even if three deities were a hive mind, you still have three deities. 3 = multiple = poly. Ergo polytheism.

I agree with you that it resembles on polytheism, but there are quite differences in comparision with polytheistic religions: three persons of the Trinity have the same will, the same energies etc. Wherever is Father, there is Son and Holy Spirit. If you speak about one person, you can not avoid to speak about other two. And as I've already said - there is no any kind of separation.

They are not three individual beings, like it is described in, for example, Egyptian mythology. Father doesn't exist without Son and Spirit, because his existence is his identity(= that he is Father). He exists because he is in communion with other two persons. This also applies to Son and Spirit.

Nothing from things mentioned above can not be found in polytheistic religions.

When you scratch below the surface, you find main differences between christianity and polytheistic religions, which is why I think that we shouldn't call it polytheism.

If you still want to call it polytheism - ok, I have no problem with that. At least, it is very strange tipe of polytheism.

Mark 15:34

Jesus cites psalm 22(21) which is prophetic and speaks about Christ's suffering on the cross etc.
Also, as a man, in that moment Jesus feels that he is abandoned by Father.

Luke 22:42

I see no problem. In the Trinity,everything happens by Father, through Son, in Holy Spirit. There is completely agrement between them. It's something that we have to keep in mind, even when we speak about incarnate Christ.

When Jesus was in the Garden of Gathsemane, his divine nature was facing with his humanity. Alike we, he felt fear from suffering and death. On the other hand, as a Son of God the Father, he has the same will with him, and he wants to do what is needed for our salvation. His divine will was in conflict with his human will. I can not find subordination here.

Matt 24:36

XV. Their tenth objection is the ignorance, and the statement that Of the last day and hour knoweth no man, not even the Son Himself, but the Father. [3674] And yet how can Wisdom be ignorant of anything—that is, Wisdom Who made the worlds, Who perfects them, Who remodels them, Who is the Limit of all things that were made, Who knoweth the things of God as the spirit of a man knows the things that are in him? [3675] For what can be more perfect than this knowledge? How then can you say that all things before that hour He knows accurately, and all things that are to happen about the time of the end, but of the hour itself He is ignorant? For such a thing would be like a riddle; as if one were to say that he knew accurately all that was in front of the wall, but did not know the wall itself; or that, knowing the end of the day, he did not know the beginning of the night—where knowledge of the one necessarily brings in the other. Thus everyone must see that He knows as God, and knows not as Man;—if one may separate the visible from that which is discerned by thought alone. For the absolute and unconditioned use of the Name "The Son" in this passage, without the addition of whose Son, gives us this thought, that we are to understand the ignorance in the most reverent sense, by attributing it to the Manhood, and not to the Godhead.

http://www.elpenor.org/gregory-nazianzen....asp?pg=10

[DeistPaladin]

He knows as God, and knows not as Man;