The trinity

[BeeDeePee]

@DeistPaladin
What's the problem if Jesus is separate from the Father(=they are not the same person)?

[frankiej]

@DeistPaladin
What's the problem if Jesus is separate from the Father(=they are not the same person)?

Because you then have polytheism, pal.

[DeistPaladin]

@DeistPaladin
What's the problem if Jesus is separate from the Father(=they are not the same person)?

For me, it's not a problem since I don't believe in any of it anyway. For the believer, you have two theological issues to work out:

1. Polytheism: Jesus can forgive sins, essentially making him a god. Dirch tries to redefine some terms here but can't escape how his triumvirate of three separate deities still contains multiple deities and is therefore polytheistic.

"Deity" = a god
Three deities = multiple gods
Multiple gods = polytheism

Redefining "God" as a conglomerate of three deities doesn't escape this problem.

2. OT vs NT Yahweh: The OT forbids us to have an intercessor deity (Isaiah 43:10-12) and the first commandment also forbids it. This same jealous god fades into the background as this young, upstart deity takes center stage?

Now there were early Christians who did believe that Jesus was a separate celestial being from Yahweh. The Marcionites thought Jesus was a superior god to Yahweh and rejected the entire OT. The Arians (not to be confused with Hitler's mythical "super race") preached that Jesus was an angel sent by Yahweh. The Ebionites said that Jesus was a mortal man adopted by Yahweh as a son.

All of these faiths failed at Nicaea because they either lacked universal appeal (the Ebionites were strictly Jewish) or they couldn't be reconciled with the OT (needed because the Romans would never accept a "new" religion, on the theory that if it were really true, how come nobody heard about it before?).

[Drich]

I've done this already. I shown and you have confirmed the seperate nature of God, and verse 30 shows that the Father and the Son are one. That "one" refers to God. Even if you can not or will not comperhend the meaning of this passage, the Jews Christ was speaking to did understand Him to say that He was God, as the Father is God. Read verse 31, 32, and 33. Christ unmistakable refers to Himself as God. And the Jews wanted to stone Him for saying it because they only understood God being a single person to that point. So again if The Son is God, as the Father is God, but both have been shown to be seperate, and yet they are one as God, then God is not a persons name, but state or title.

We also know this to be true because of the words used in the greek to communicate "God" is theos:
2) the Godhead, trinity

a) God the Father, the first person in the trinity

b) Christ, the second person of the trinity

c) Holy Spirit, the third person in the trinity

The Doctrine of the Godhead is what i have broken down and explained here. In that God is a title and not a name. (It's nothing new, just an new way at looking at things)

And what I have explained here is that at no point is God as an organization ever stated or even implied. This is something you've gathered from odds and ends that you've put your own meaning behind. There is nothing substantial behind your theory no matter how much you try to claim there is. Your theory is just one of many that has scant to back it up. Stop acting like you've proven it, you haven't even proven the concept of God exists let alone your personal theory for the state in which you think God exists

Again nothing being said here is new. This is just the doctrine of the God Head explained in terms easy enough for the average person to understand. If you still do not or will not understand what is being explained their is nothing more i can do for you.

[BeeDeePee]

@frankiej

I don't think so.
The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are three persons that have the same(divine) essence or nature.
It's the same like three men who share common human nature.

But, there is one difference between humans and divine persons of the Trinity: when we speak about the mankind and everything that is created, we have to consider spase-time. Space-time separates human nature among many people, and that's why you have three men, though they have the same nature. But, when it comes to the Triune God, there is no separation between them. There's just personal dictinction, because you have three persons that have their own unique identity.

[DeistPaladin]

@frankiej

I don't think so.
The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are three persons that have the same(divine) essence or nature.
It's the same like three men who share common human nature.

But, there is one difference between humans and divine persons of the Trinity: when we speak about the mankind and everything that is created, we have to consider spase-time. Space-time separates human nature among many people, and that's why you have three men, though they have the same nature. But, when it comes to the Triune God, there is no separation between them. There's just personal dictinction, because you have three persons that have their own unique identity.

Two problems:

1. Sorry, it's still polytheism.

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

Add as much gloss as you like.

2. It can't be reconciled with the Synoptic Gospels

Do I really need to quote them again for you? In these Gospels, Jesus is separate from and subordinate to Yahweh, with a lesser body of knowledge, a subordinate will and a different frame of experience evidence by speaking to Yahweh in 2nd person and of him in 3rd person.

Tell me how "same substance god" can be reconciled with the verses I previously quoted:
Mark 15:34
Matt 24:36
Luke 22:42

[Drich]

The best way to understand the Trinity is as a compromise in committee.

Early Christians were wrestling with Christology. What was Jesus and his role in salvation? Was he man or a god or the God or an angel or...?

The problem was complicated by the need to reconcile Jesus with strict OT monotheism. The god YHWH was a jealous and deeply insecure god who couldn't bear any distractions from his adoration by mortal worshipers. His first commandment was "thou shalt have no gods before me" and his rant in Isaiah 43:10-12 made it clear that he delegates his role as judge to no one.

Which is all reconciled if one simply looks as the word God as a title and not a name. There isn't one deity named God. It is a title that three collectively share.

So how should Christianity reconcile this OT god with the god who fades into a mysterious backdrop while Jesus takes center stage? Jesus' very claim in John 14:6 that he is the intercessor to Yahweh and the only path to salvation.

Very simply. We look at the complete context in which the original Greek and Hebrew were framed.

In sum:

OT: "You are forbidden to have an intercessor" (Is 43:10-12)

I, [even] I, [am] the LORD; h3068 יהוה Yĕhovah

and beside h1107 בלעדי bil`adey

me [there is] no savior. h3467 ישע yasha`

In short God is saying, outside of God there is no salvation.

NT: "You are required to have an intercessor" (John 14:6)

I can break it down in the Greek, if wish. But you have not changed the meaning of the text here too dramatically.

This is quite a dilemma to reconcile. A more clear contradiction on the important matter of salvation would be hard to imagine.

Only as stated. When one opens his own bible and reads what has actually been written reconciliation can easily be found on page.

Solution: Jesus is the same god of the OT and so he is his own intercessor ...to Himself ...because No one comes to him except through him.

OK, we're already on pretty shaky ground here with tautologies like that but it gets worse when you consider how the Synoptic Gospels (Matt, Mark and Luke) depict Jesus as clearly separate from and subordinate to his father (sorry Dirch, but there's no "equality" here between the parts).

Because the bulk of your sermon is based on a [lets say misconception of Isa 43] Your conclusion does warrant a rebuttal. That means the following work:

Jesus and Yahweh speak to each other in 2nd person and of each other in 3rd person:

Mark 15:34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? Which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Jesus doesn't know all that Yahweh knows:

Matt 24:36 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, neither the Son but my Father only.

Jesus has a separate will which is subordinate to his father's will:

Luke 22:42 Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.

These are just a few examples how how the Synoptic depict a Jesus clearly separate from and subordinate to his father, Yahweh. Were the Gospel of John lost to us, were we to rely on the Synoptic, we'd have the idea that Jesus is some sort of demigod. How can such verses be squared with the idea of Jesus as Yahweh or even as part of some equal triumvirate corporation of deities that you propose Dirch?

The solution is to babble about how Jesus is God and not God, wholly human and wholly divine, three separate persons in one divine being. When this proves unsatisfying, rely on metaphors like water or invent ad hoc explanations based on nothing but imagination like the one you've come up with Dirch.

This is how to understand the Trinity. It is, as one Christian on this forum once blundered into admitting, a way to have your cake and eat it too. It's a clumsy tool to ram together pagan ideas of an intercessor deity to save us from a pagan inspired Hell (which the ancient Hebrews did NOT believe in, based on the OT) with the strict monotheism of Judaism.

And your idea of a corporation of deities IS polytheism, no matter how you quibble about as you try to redefine the term "deity".

---

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

[DeistPaladin]

Dirch, two problems you need to address:

1. How do the Synoptic verses I quote work with your idea of "equality" between the deities that comprise GodCorp?

If Jesus has a subordinate will, a lesser degree of knowledge, prays on his knees to his father and acts as intercessor (ala secretary) how is he in any way "equal"?

2. If GodCorp contains three (3) deities as you've previously posted, how is that not polytheism?

Even if these three beings acted as a hive mind in perfect concert with each other, with the same will, mind and base of knowledge (which we've established is not the case), there are still three.

3 = multiple
deities = gods
multiple = poly
theism = belief in a god or in gods
Ergo: Belief in three deities = poly-theism.

Add as many "yeah but..." s as you like.

[Drich]

For me, it's not a problem since I don't believe in any of it anyway. For the believer, you have two theological issues to work out:

1. Polytheism: Jesus can forgive sins, essentially making him a god. Dirch tries to redefine some terms here but can't escape how his triumvirate of three separate deities still contains multiple deities and is therefore polytheistic.

"Deity" = a god

I haven't redefined anything. This is a strawman arguement centered around the fact that you are not willing to accept the dictionary's definition of Deity as posted.
Since you are not prepared to argue the reference material I quoted, the next best thing for you is to change the facts to something you know how to argue. Stop being lazy and do your due diligence and address what has been stated. Not change the arguement to something you are familiar with and think you know how to argue.

Redefining "God" as a conglomerate of three deities doesn't escape this problem.

Nothing has been redefined by me. I have shown my work in this thread and listed my reference material. Where is yours? Understand commentary by someone more religious than you is not Reference material. Also know changing what the bible says to support your arguments is also not reference material.. Aside from that I ask you prove your assertions like I have been made to do each and everytime I bring a thought on to this forum. Just because you do not believe in God does not mean your assertions about Him are free from the same scrutiny that assertions for the presents of God warrant. Show your work.

Now there were early Christians who did believe that Jesus was a separate celestial being from Yahweh. The Marcionites thought Jesus was a superior god to Yahweh and rejected the entire OT. The Arians (not to be confused with Hitler's mythical "super race") preached that Jesus was an angel sent by Yahweh. The Ebionites said that Jesus was a mortal man adopted by Yahweh as a son.

All of these faiths failed at Nicaea because they either lacked universal appeal (the Ebionites were strictly Jewish) or they couldn't be reconciled with the OT (needed because the Romans would never accept a "new" religion, on the theory that if it were really true, how come nobody heard about it before?).

Red herring. your appeal to off topic 'facts' indicates a grasping of filler material to bulk up your message. This should be about the bible, the original words found in the bible and the meanings of those words. The rest is foolishness. Again, show me your work. Show me where you assertions are based.

[Thor]

Which is all reconciled if one simply looks as the word God as a title and not a name. There isn't one deity named God. It is a title that three collectively share.

So there are three gods! Got it!