A Rational Explanation of the Trinity

[irichc]

We have three axioms:

1) There is no thought without a thinking subject, and vice versa, there is no thinking subject without a thought.

2) Nobody can be his own thought, since it implies a contradiction between subject and object. The subject must be always greater than the object.

3) Nothing is without an activity.

And I infer the following:

a) "The truth is the truth" is the first truth.

b) It can't exist without an activity, so it must be thought by someone.

c) The Father thinks it, and that truth is the Son.

d) The Father is greater than the Son. Nevertheless, they are the same reality, as far as there is no thought without a thinking subject and there is no thinking subject without a thought.

e) The act of thinking itself is the Holy Spirit.

f) So, I understand the Trinity as "The Thinker (Father) in the Act of Thinking (Holy Spirit) the Thought (Son)".

* * *

I.

"'The truth is the truth' is true" is a part of the set of truths, since it is true, but only in a tangencial way, as far as it doesn't need any other truth as a fundament and it exists necessarily.

Every truth must fulfill three properties: 1) coherence with itself, 2) coherence with other truths and 3) inference from other truths. God only fulfills 1) and 2). Thus, it is part and it isn't part of the set of truths.

I'm inclined to think that God lacks a basis. If he had one, it would be someting logically previous to God, simpler than him, more elemental and, therefore, greater. In other words: truth is abstractive, that is to say, negative. That which is more composed is more contingent (it has more conditions of existence), innecessary or superfluous than that which is simpler.

II.

Trinity solves the following problem: How is possible the "creatio ex nihilo" of material things from the divine, inmaterial plenitude?

Gnostics proposed a prolation or pronunciation of God to the material world. Before this prolation occurred, it would have been some unavoidable Silence and Abyss between the Creator and the creature.

Catholic ortodoxy opposes to this conception the coeternity of the Word, engendered from the same substance of God before any time was. The divine Verb is, previous to its incarnation, the invisible Image of the Creator, but it is also the invisible or rational image of every creature. It acts as a mediator between both realities.

Truth would be inactive and it could not create anything if it wasn't, at the same time, expansive. The self-sufficient truth, then, also implies the true. So, Trinity can be condensed in this sentence: "'The truth (Father) is the truth' (Son) is true (Holy Spirit)". It doesn't exist a simpler way to express the first true proposition, the unfounded fundament of everything.

If Islam denies that this proposition is true, then Islam is wrong and leads to falsity, which can't be attributed to God, but to the doctrines of men. If Islam thinks that there is a simpler procedure in order to express this first true proposition, may Islam show it as soon as possible.

III.

1) God didn't create the world arbitrarily, but according to ideas supported by the Truth.

2) However, the Father can't be fully identified with that coeternal ideas, since they presuppose a creative intention and a preceptive order. In the other hand, the will of Creation is an accidental one compared to the eternal, unengendered and self-subsistent potency of God.

Plus, God's providence depends on his will, while his will doesn't depend on providence.

Finally, ideas are naturally conceivable, but God is absolutely inconceivable.

3) Christ (the Son) is the sum of all the ideas that tend to Creation, and he is also its engendered fundament: the Good, the Truth, the Life.

God, nevertheless, is Christ's fundament.

4) God, an absolutely undetermined potency, engenders the Truth, an absolutely determined potency. At last, it engenders the Spirit, which is the infinite and absolutely determined act, as far as it is coherent with the Truth.

Cheers.

Daniel.


Theological Miscellany (in Spanish):

http://www.miscelaneateologica.tk

 

[beyondtimeandspace]

Very good expression of the Trinity. I still have to grind some things out up in the ol' processor, but most of what you have said seems accurate.

However, there is one paragraph that I know of that I don't entirely agree with:

I'm inclined to think that God lacks a basis. If he had one, it would be someting logically previous to God, simpler than him, more elemental and, therefore, greater. In other words: truth is abstractive, that is to say, negative. That which is more composed is more contingent (it has more conditions of existence), innecessary or superfluous than that which is simpler.

I don't agree that truth is negative. It is often true that the simpler a statement is, the easier it is to understand. However, it is also true that complex language is often more precise than simple language. Also, to say that that which is more composed is more contingent also seems somewhat false. For, if this were the case, then animals would be more like God than humans, and likewise innanimate objects even more similar to God, because they are composed of less than animate, and likewise animals are less composed than humans. Yet, this is quite contrary to our natural notion that to have intelligence (as opposed to lacking intelligence) is more Godlike, with the consideration that God is a supreme intelligence.

To me, it seems more true to say that Truth is additive. We say that God is infinite. Such an infinity can only be had in the additive sense rather than the negative, and in approaching God-likeness one must experience the additive toward his nature in order to approach the infinite. This is growth. Growth, addition, engenders complexity, however it also allows for simplification. Where the mind is simple, the advanced is too complex. However, where the mind is complex, the advanced becomes simple. And this is one paradox of the infinite: Undetermined complexity, containing absolute simplicity. Therefore, Truth may be found in both the simple and the complex. However, since the complexity of God is undetermined, it is easier to discover the Truth in simplicity. Therefore, the Truth is the most apparent when considered in its simplest form, but most precise in its undetermined complexity.

Furthermore, while it may be true that a finite form of greater complexity is more contingent, that is not the case with the infinite. Since each human is highly complex, there is greater possibility that any given human may not exist. However, the most basic finite form is the least contingent, since it is out of this form that the greater complexities will arise. Yet, the infinite, being ever additively comprised, yet a complete set, is both the most basic form, and the most complex. It is the most basic because it is out of this form that any determined level of complexity may arise, yet it is also the most complex because it is also every possible construction (such as thought, or form) to an undetermined degree. All and one, absolutely unitive, absolutely wholistic.

Hmm... I hope that makes sense .

 

[-=T=-]

Hmmm...
Axioms 1, 2, and 3 are pretty good... and it would seem that they do a good job of laying the groundwork for DIS proving a concept of trinity.

You should have stopped there.

Inferences a and b are okay... but IMO c-f feel totally contrived, irrational, and seem to come out of left field.

Particularly, inference d ---aside from the circularity problem--- is contradictory to axiom 2.

"An inference is a proposition which is perceived to be true, because of its connection with some known fact. When something is simply affirmed to be true, it is called a proposition; after it has been found to be true by several reasons or arguments, it is called a conclusion.''
--I. Taylor

 

[beyondtimeandspace]

2) Nobody can be his own thought, since it implies a contradiction between subject and object. The subject must be always greater than the object.

Axiom 2 isn't entirely correct either. The first part says nothing about the second part. That the subject has greater or lesser value than the object can in no way be inferred from your first statement. If it was not your intent to infer the second statement in this axiom from the first, then please say so.

However, even if it isn't meant to be an inferrence, I don't necessarily agree that the subject must always be greater than the object. In sentence structure, the subject is what the statement centers on. However, this value is relative to the knowledge being imparted upon the reader, or hearer of the idea spoken. It does not necessarily mean that the intrinsic value of either the subject or the object is any greater or lesser than the other.

That being said, I understand that the subject and object you are speaking of here are the thinker and the thought. In this case, again, with the finite, this is true. The existence of the thinker is a greater form than the existence of the thought. However, the same cannot be said of the infinite. While there are many thoughts thought by the infinite, most are lesser than the thinker, due to the nature of their existence. However, a thought by the infinite that is fully of the infinite, then the thought is identical with the thinker, except for that it is the thought rather than the thinker. Therefore, by nature of the existence of one versus the other, neither is greater, since both share in the same form of existence, that is, an actually infinite one.

 

[Q25]

irichc wrote:
We have three axioms:

1) There is no thought without a thinking subject, and vice versa, there is no thinking subject without a thought.

It would appear that irichc sees fit to redefine the axiom of consciousness, although he fails to introduce the axiom of identity first. Anyway, let's carry on.

2) Nobody can be his own thought, since it implies a contradiction between subject and object. The subject must be always greater than the object.

The idea that "nobody" can be his own thought" is simply absurd. The idea that there is a contradiction between "subject and object" is merely asserted without explanation. One would assume that Irichc himself would hold that god can "be his own thought", which would be a self refutation.

However, I have no need to refer to non existence, incohernent objects. Clearly a conscious entity can ponder itself, so this claim appears to be simply false.

The statement "the subject must always be "greater" than the object" is a complete non sequitur - it is also meaningless. What on earth is meant by "greater" and why is this even introduced without any supporting statements?

3) Nothing is without an activity.

This also is meaningless. What is meant by "activity". The term often speaks to human behavior. But clearly things exist outside of human behavior.
It is correct to say that nothing can exist without identity.

a) "The truth is the truth" is the first truth.

This is the axiom of identity, apparently - that a thing equals itself. The problem is that it is a tautology, ergo while we can certainly call it a "truth" it is a vacuous truth - i.e. it tells us nothing. Ergo, it has no veradicality. There is no referrant here, so in a sense, to say it is the "first truth" is meaningless. In addition, I wonder: why is it the "first truth"? And what does saying it is the "first truth" even imply?

b) It can't exist without an activity, so it must be thought by someone.

Yes. "Truth' is a concept that forms in human minds. So there cannot be 'truth' without consciousness. Watch as irichc takes this anthropomorphic reality and projects it out as to his god

c) The Father thinks it, and that truth is the Son.

As predicted. Here we have Irichc's chasm leaping, non sequitur. Nothing in this argument even remotely connects the previous to the idea of a supernatural being (god).

All that has been said here is that there is the axiom of identity, and the fact that "Truth" is a concept born of conscious minds. All the rest that follows, does not follow, ergo it is a non sequitur, and illogical.

d) The Father is greater than the Son. Nevertheless, they are the same reality, as far as there is no thought without a thinking subject and there is no thinking subject without a thought.

e) The act of thinking itself is the Holy Spirit.

f) So, I understand the Trinity as "The Thinker (Father) in the Act of Thinking (Holy Spirit) the Thought (Son)".

"'The truth is the truth' is true" is a part of the set of truths, since it is true, but only in a tangencial way, as far as it doesn't need any other truth as a fundament and it exists necessarily.

No, this is stated incorrectly, and nearly incoherently. "The truth is the truth" is merely a tautology. While it is necessarily true, it achieves this truth level at the cost of veradicality. In other words, since it is a tautology, we know it is true in the same sense we know that "a zark is a zark" But this comes at the cost of having no 'truth value" - i.e. it cannot speak to anything outside of itself.

Ergo it cannot work as a support for his argument. But let's read on.

Every truth must fulfill three properties: 1) coherence with itself, 2) coherence with other truths and 3) inference from other truths. God only fulfills 1) and 2). Thus, it is part and it isn't part of the set of truths.

Here we have an argument that uses a concept that is not defined, and has not even been introduced previously. It is again a non sequitur. Irichc merely asserts that "god" does these things.

I'm inclined to think that God lacks a basis. If he had one, it would be someting logically previous to God, simpler than him, more elemental and, therefore, greater.

Congratulations! After years of putting forth arguments, you've finally realized what an axiom is!

The problem is that there is no axioms more "basic" than the axiom of existence. So how can there be no "basis" more elemental than god, when god's existence would require the axiom of existence, which would be a necessary basis to god?

Can we say checkmated?

In other words: truth is abstractive, that is to say, negative.

Of course truth is "abstractive". It exists in human minds. Truth is not available at the truth store, 3 for a dollar. Truth is merely is a concept humans use to denote veradicality between an assertion about objective reality and objective reality apart from human minds.

That which is more composed is more contingent (it has more conditions of existence), innecessary or superfluous than that which is simpler.
II.
Trinity solves the following problem: How is possible the "creatio ex nihilo" of material things from the divine, inmaterial plenitude?

The trinity does not "solve the problem". In addition, no theist can explain how "nothing" once existed, nor why there must be a creation moment in the first place. It is merely an assumption of the view that is self contradictory.

III.
1) God didn't create the world arbitrarily, but according to ideas supported by the Truth.

All acts by your omnipotent god must be arbitrary, by necessity, because your god would create the "reasons" in the first place. Since he creates the very concept of 'purpose and reason" it cannot come before him. Ergo, god's actions must always be arbitrary.

Cheers.
Daniel.

Back to the drawing board, danny.

 

[irichc]

Seems Danny likes to spam boards with this post. I've found it on quite a few, dating back to last year. If Danny can cut-and-paste his argument, I suppose I can cut-and-paste a response which Danny ignored back in September of last year

Answering "it's meaningless" is just a pedantic, positivist style way of stating "I cannot get it". I have nothing but scorn for these kind of idiotic replies. But it's ok, just for the sake of the controversy, let's lose a little time with you, dude.

*******************

We have three axioms:

2) Nobody can be his own thought, since it implies a contradiction between subject and object. The subject must be always greater than the object.


The idea that "nobody" can be his own thought" is simply absurd. The idea that there is a contradiction between "subject and object" is merely asserted without explanation. One would assume that Irichc himself would hold that god can "be his own thought", which would be a self refutation.

The word "under-stand", "comprender" in Spanish (literally: "to comprise"), shows that any understood thought presupposes a subject that "over-stands" it.

In the other hand, God can be his own thought, as far as his thought is infinite in act. Nevertheless, this thought has only the substance of God-Father, that is to say, his wisdom. So it's not God-Father (engenderer), but it's God-Son (engendered), because it's infinite, self-subsistent and eternal, and, thus, it doesn't lack anything to be God.

I would be contradicting myself if I stated that God-Father can be his own thought. Well, I didn't.

However, I have no need to refer to non existence, incohernent objects. Clearly a conscious entity can ponder itself, so this claim appears to be simply false.

May be clear for you, for me is nothing but a stupid assumption. A conscious entity, besides God, can only have a very imperfect thought of itself. What do I mean? Pay attention. If someone totally understood himself, he would be greater than his own notion and, then, greater than himself (since you aren't anything that isn't in your notion). That implies a neat contradiction, which would lead us to consider the theoretical non-existence of that being.

The statement "the subject must always be "greater" than the object" is a complete non sequitur - it is also meaningless. What on earth is meant by "greater" and why is this even introduced without any supporting statements?

Get a life.

3) Nothing is without an activity.

This also is meaningless. What is meant by "activity". The term often speaks to human behavior.

Often, not ever.

a) "The truth is the truth" is the first truth.


This is the axiom of identity, apparently - that a thing equals itself. The problem is that it is a tautology, ergo while we can certainly call it a "truth" it is a vacuous truth - i.e. it tells us nothing. Ergo, it has no veradicality. There is no referrant here, so in a sense, to say it is the "first truth" is meaningless. In addition, I wonder: why is it the "first truth"? And what does saying it is the "first truth" even imply?

In an infinite succession of eternal truths (since the nature of the truth as not contradiction is immutable), the last truth, that at the same time is the first one, guarantees the coherence between all of them.

If there were infinite truths and, nevertheless, we were lack of last truth, we could not affirm that “the truth is the truth”, since every truth links to another one, none that is not over all of them is capable of embrace them at the same level.

Any truth that one affirms presupposes, then, this deep truth: “the truth is the truth”. And that, far from being a tautology, indicates us that the truth can exist by itself, that is to say, without real concern, or ideal.

NB: By "first and last truth" I mean a primordial truth that presupposes every single one, and that is itself presupposed by all of them. I'm not thinking in a circle, but in a common trunk with infinite ramifications.

In other words:

1. The set of true statements is finite or infinite.

1.1. If it is finite, it is limited by a truth or by a non-truth.

1.1.1. If it is limited by a truth, that truth is an unlimited one, that is, God.

1.1.2. If it is limited by a non-truth, we are speaking of pseudo-truths which cover an unavoidable contradiction. In that case, the proposition "An infinite set of true statements limited by a non-truth exists" is false too, being nonsensical to claim such a thing.

1.2. If it is infinite, it has or it has not a first Truth.

1.2.1. If it has a first Truth at the beginning of the whole succession, then this Truth is self-referent, it is its own cause and, therefore, it is God. Its truth value doesn't need neither logic demonstration nor empirical verification, as far as it is self-depending.

1.2.2. If it has not a first Truth, then the proposition "the truth is the truth" is false, which would abolish every single truth, sending us back to point 1.1.2.

b) It can't exist without an activity, so it must be thought by someone.


Yes. "Truth' is a concept that forms in human minds. So there cannot be 'truth' without consciousness. Watch as irichc takes this anthropomorphic reality and projects it out as to his god

You say that 1) "truth is a concept that forms in human minds". And then that 2) truth is impossible "without consciousness". Let me think it again. Does it mean that your first proposition (1) is only true because your "human mind" believes that? In that case, the sense of this sentence can be changed into its opposite by the mere power of will of a set of human beings, which would make me be right in front of you. Plus, does your second proposition (2) mean that if every fellow lost their cosciousness, the assumed truth of (2) will turn to be blatant falsity in that elapse of time? Take the consequences of that.

I'm inclined to think that God lacks a basis. If he had one, it would be someting logically previous to God, simpler than him, more elemental and, therefore, greater.


Congratulations! After years of putting forth arguments, you've finally realized what an axiom is!

The problem is that there is no axioms more "basic" than the axiom of existence. So how can there be no "basis" more elemental than god, when god's existence would require the axiom of existence, which would be a necessary basis to god?

In the first place, "existence" is not an axiom, but the logical ground of any existential attribute, such as thinking, moving, etc. (cfr. Kant). In the second place, God cannot be conceived as no-existing (cfr. Anselm).

III.
1) God didn't create the world arbitrarily, but according to ideas supported by the Truth.


All acts by your omnipotent god must be arbitrary, by necessity, because your god would create the "reasons" in the first place. Since he creates the very concept of 'purpose and reason" it cannot come before him. Ergo, god's actions must always be arbitrary.

God doesn't "create" reasons or ideas, which are a co-eternal part of his mind. It would be as nonsensical as creating himself.

Can we say checkmated?

You must say it louder!

Cheers.

Daniel.


Theological Miscellany (still in Spanish):

http://www.miscelaneateologica.tk

 

[SnakeLord]

Actually, the trinity can be pretty swiftly laid to rest simply by looking at Matthew 24:

"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."

If jesus was god, then he would know the day and hour that he set. To not know what god knows shows that he is a separate being.

Failing that you could always read Hebrews where god swears an oath that jesus is a high priest forever - not a god. The role of high priest has been held by others, (Melchizedek - who had no beginning and no end), but was taken over by jesus. The very oath sworn by god instantly negates any claim that jesus is god. jesus is a priest forever, so sayeth god. How can you argue against god himself? In doing so you would be calling god a liar.

 

[irichc]

Hilary of Poitiers already answered to this heretic objection.

1) He remembers us that, according to Paul, Christ is creator of everything: "For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible" (Col. 1, 16), so nothing can be ignored by him.

2) But then again, God-Father talks as he wasn't totally aware of Sodom and Gomorrah's crimes: "I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know" (Gen. 18, 21).

3) Plus, Jesus himself swears he doesn't know the sinner: "And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity" (Mt. 7, 23).

So, when Jesus confesses that alleged ignorance, he isn't faking it, but letting us understand that the time of knowledge is not accomplished yet.

Cheers.

Daniel.


http://www.miscelaneateologica.tk

 

[SnakeLord]

1) He remembers us that, according to Paul, Christ is creator of everything: "For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible" (Col. 1, 16), so nothing can be ignored by him.

The beginning of this quote that you've mistyped states jesus as:

"The first-born of all creation". If he was born and created as this suggests then he can't be god. I wondered why you missed that bit out, especially given that it's the very sentence before the one you quoted.

It's odd to think you would consider jesus as god given that he was born and created, whereas melchizedek, (jesus' predecessor), was known as "having no beginning and no end". The bible clearly shows that jesus did have a beginning, and thus makes him inferior to melchizedek.

2) But then again, God-Father talks as he wasn't totally aware of Sodom and Gomorrah's crimes: "I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know" (Gen. 18, 21).

Yes, quite often god shows he is far from being omniscient. Even at the very beginning of the bible when he's walking through the garden of eden and can't find Adam and Eve.

But it is by and large irrelevant to my post. If one knows, then by default the other one must also know - because they're the exact same being. The example you provided is of no worth to that.

3) Plus, Jesus himself swears he doesn't know the sinner: "And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity" (Mt. 7, 23).

Again this example is of no consequence to what I posted. You've seemingly changed this thread from 'trinity' to 'godly ignorance'. My short and easily understandable post merely stated that any claim that jesus is god falls apart the moment we see that god knows something that jesus doesn't.

I also notice that neither you or Hilary have managed to mention the latter part of my post where god swears an oath that jesus is a priest - nothing more, a duty held by others before him, (Melchizedek etc).

How about you and Hilary go and spend some time thinking about it, and come back when you can provide a relevant response that doesn't miss out half my post and does slightly better a job than just stating god's incompetent.

Cheers back.

 

[irichc]

I already explained the correct interpretation and true meaning of that passage. Jesus hides us the day, not ignoring it; just as he won't ignore the damned ones when the judgement day comes and just as God didn't ignore Sodom's fate. If God didn't act like he was unaware of human business, we would have no freedom at all.

Regarding to Christ as a mere priest:

1) Jesus is prophesized in Daniel as "Son of Man", in Isaiah as the suffering servant ("God with us"), and he is proclaimed by St. John the Baptist in the same terms: "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!" (Jn. 1, 29).

2) Jesus has his messianic entrance in Jerusalem on a donkey, as Zachary prophesized.

3) God says of him: "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased! Hear him!" (Mt. 3, 17; Lc. 9, 36).

4) Jesus, like God, has the prerrogative of changing names: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church" (Mt. 16, 18).

5) He also states that "the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath" and that he has come to accomplish the Law. No prophet dared this before, since only him is invested with the divine authority. He renews the commandments ("You have heard... But I say to you...").

6) Jesus, who is obeyed by nature, calms a storm (cf. Mk. 4, 35-41).

7) Jesus, like the "Spirit of God brooding on the face of the waters" narrated in Genesis, walks on the water (cf. Mk. 6, 45-52). Peter follows him as told to, but he has to hold Jesus' hand to avoid sinking.

8) Jesus foresees persecutions against Christians: "And take ye heed to yourselves, for they shall deliver you up to sanhedrims, and to synagogues, ye shall be beaten, and before governors and kings ye shall be set for my sake, for a testimony to them" (Mk 13, 9-13), and the division which his doctrine is going to cause among Jews, Pagans and Muslims: "For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law" (Mt. 10, 35).

9) Jesus forgives the sins of the paralytic (only God can do this) and the Pharisees are scandalized (cf. Mk. 2, 7). But he adds: "And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me" (Mt. 11, 6).

10) Jesus gives eternal life: "For whoever wants to save his life will lose it; and whoever will lose his life for my sake and the sake of the Good News will save it" (Mk. 8, 35), because he is greater than life: "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple" (Lk. 14, 26-27).

11) Jesus is eternal and omnipresent: "And know that I am with you always, until the end of the world" (Mt. 28, 20).

12) He feels identified with God-Father: "He who sees me sees him who sent me" (Jn. 12, 45).

13) He predicts his own resurrection on the third day (cf. Mt. 20, 19).

14) He speaks of himself as Master ("A disciple is not above the teacher, nor a slave above the master") and King ("My kingdom is not of this world").

15) He will separate the husk from the grain in the final Judgement (Mt. 25, 31-46).

16) Jesus' disciples acknowledge him as God, and he assents gladly: "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God" (Mt. 16, 16); "Of a truth thou art the Son of God" (Mt. 14, 33); "My Lord and my God" (Jn. 20, 28).

17) Jesus declares himself the Son of God in the Sanhedrim, and the Pharisees demand his crucifiction for this reason (cf. Mt. 26, 64-66).

18) Jesus was created as a creature, but he is eternally generated by God as the second Person of the Trinity. So he is the first-born of all creation and God at the same time.

Cheers.

Daniel.


Theological Miscellany (in Spanish):

http://www.miscelaneateologica.tk

 

[Paul299]

"The role of high priest has been held by others, (Melchizedek - who had no beginning and no
end), but was taken over by jesus. The very oath sworn by god instantly negates any claim that
jesus is god. jesus is a priest forever, so sayeth god. How can you argue against god himself? In
doing so you would be calling god a liar. "

Your clearly have not thought about your argument - Jesus is called many things in the scriptures
Being something does not mean that something can not also be something else.

There are policemen and there are black men- so you are saying that because a man is black he
can not be a policemen! All becase he is a black man and thus can not be anything else but a
balckman?

They are different levels of action/purpose but they can be the same entity.

Just as Jesus is a priest and God the Son at the same Time. Its by necessity that He is a priest,
because by definition a priest intercedes on behalf of others before God.

 

[SnakeLord]

I already explained the correct interpretation and true meaning of that passage.

Really? Where's that? I certainly didn't get to see it. Oh and just out of curiosity, what exactly defines it as the 'correct interpretation' and 'true meaning'? To this day even the most devout of christians cannot agree on much. Who are you that I should think you got it perfectly peachy without even breaking a sweat?

However, nice guy that I am, I will give you opportunity to present your case - and I shall then respond to it.. Enjoy.

If God didn't act like he was unaware of human business, we would have no freedom at all.

I'm somewhat unsure as to what you're actually trying to say here. It is seemingly along the lines that god is pretending that he doesn't know what's going on in order for you to have freedom. How you work that out I will never know.

1) Jesus is prophesized in Daniel as "Son of Man"

Hmm... well let's consider that for a moment..

Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind.

So we would be left with this:

1) god is not a 'son of man'

2) jesus is a 'son of man'

This leads to only one viable conclusion: jesus is not god.

in Isaiah as the suffering servant

The very meaning of the word 'servant' would remove any question of jesus being god.

"Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!"

Again showing he's not god. (Jn. 1, 29) does not say: "look at god, who has taken away the sin of the world". No, instead he has said to look at the lamb of god, (the pet of god). Typically lambs would be looked after by a shepherd, but only a fool would try and claim that the lamb and the shepherd are the same being.

So far you haven't managed to show anything that would even remotely hint at jesus being god - in fact you've done the complete opposite of that - labelling jesus as a 'son of man', (which god is not), a servant and a hairy grass chewing animal. I hope you have more than just that..

2) Jesus has his messianic entrance in Jerusalem on a donkey, as Zachary prophesized.

While I can only wonder at how many people back in the ancient days rode donkeys in and out of Jerusalem, I fail to see the value of your statement here. It doesn't in any way go against Hebrews, nor does it in any way support a claim that jesus and god are the very same being.

3) God says of him: "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased! Hear him!" (Mt. 3, 17; Lc. 9, 36).

Let me rephrase that for you..

"This is my beloved me, and I am well pleased with me! Hear me!".

Your quote used shows in itself that jesus is not god - but a son of god. What it means is that jesus is a demigod - (A male being, often the offspring of a god and a mortal, who has some but not all of the powers of a god).

Let's look at the bible..

jesus was a male being.. 1-0
jesus was the offspring of a god and a mortal.. 2-0
had some but not all powers of god.. 3-0 (he could walk on water etc but was clearly not unkillable - which unless you really want to argue it, is something you could never do to a god).

See, jesus was just like gilgamesh - Not a god but a half god, a mini god.

4) Jesus, like God, has the prerrogative of changing names

Sorry? I don't understand the relevance of this to anything. I myself like changing names. Not only other peoples - who I often give nicknames to, but my own name depending on where I am. On this forum I use the name Snake, but that's not my real name. Does this now mean I'm god?

No offence, but '4)' is not an argument that aids anything.

5) He also states that "the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath" and that he has come to accomplish the Law.

Once again, in Numbers god clearly states that he is not a son of man. jesus can be lord of the weekend, grasshoppers or banana milkshakes.. It changes nothing, and makes him no more god than the Lord Mayor is god.

No prophet dared this before

It doesn't matter who dared what. Having balls does not make someone god.

6) Jesus, who is obeyed by nature, calms a storm (cf. Mk. 4, 35-41).

Ok, he calmed a storm.. (scroll up and read the definition of demigod). I didn't say the dude couldn't perform some good tricks, or display some superhero powers.. I said jesus and god are not the same being.. This is still to be even remotely debated by you and is actually attested to by god.

Jesus, like the "Spirit of God brooding on the face of the waters" narrated in Genesis

Although it's not of much relevance, if any, where is that quote featured in genesis?

Peter follows him as told to, but he has to hold Jesus' hand to avoid sinking.

See my reply to the quote before the previous one.

8) Jesus foresees persecutions against Christians: "And take ye heed to yourselves, for they shall deliver you up to sanhedrims, and to synagogues, ye shall be beaten, and before governors and kings ye shall be set for my sake, for a testimony to them" (Mk 13, 9-13)

See previous reply. Further to which even I can see persecution against christians.. Does that make me god? Do not think for one second that there was no religious disharmony and intolerance back then. It is plain as day to any 'outsider' that they will be persecuted.

and the division which his doctrine is going to cause among Jews, Pagans and Muslims: "For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law" (Mt. 10, 35).

And add christians to that aswell.. How many different sects that all disagree with each other? Several thousand? How long have the protestants and catholics been annihilating each other?

I agree, he could see the religious disharmony that would be ever present in this world. Anyone with their eyes open could. But do not think that this religious disharmony is a new thing. Do not think that the same amount of religious disharmony wasn't present right there, right then.

However, none of this actually goes to help show that jesus and god are the same being.

9) Jesus forgives the sins of the paralytic (only God can do this)

Well see, the scribes were the one's who claimed that only god could forgive sins - to which jesus then disagreed with them, and goes on to say: "But to prove to you that the son of man, (remember that god is not a son of man), has authority to forgive sins..."

If you read it you can see that jesus is indeed disagreeing with the scribes claim that only god can forgive. He then shows that he too can forgive, (even though he isn't god).

Read it.. Spend some time digesting it. jesus talks but you do not listen.

But he adds: "And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me" (Mt. 11, 6).

I'm sorry but you have no place to claim that he "adds" the quote you have used. They feature in entirely different chapters at entirely different times.

10) Jesus gives eternal life: "For whoever wants to save his life will lose it; and whoever will lose his life for my sake and the sake of the Good News will save it" (Mk. 8, 35)

jesus does not, god does.. as shown just after in Mark 8:38 (..when he comes in the glory of his father with the holy angels). There is no claim here that jesus and god are the same being, instead that they are separate beings.

11) Jesus is eternal and omnipresent: "And know that I am with you always, until the end of the world" (Mt. 28, 20).

Just so you know.. The word "until" instantly negates the word "eternal". If he was god there would be no 'until'.

12) He feels identified with God-Father: "He who sees me sees him who sent me" (Jn. 12, 45).

Funnily enough so does the preacher up the road who states that god's presence is in everyone, (a major part of being omnipresent I guess). So did David Koresh come to think of it. However, looking further on in John we see jesus declare quite openly:

"For I have not spoken of my own accord; but the father who sent me, commanded me what to say and what to speak, and I know that his commands mean eternal life."

As we can see jesus is very clearly explaining that he is not god, but, (as stated several times earlier in the bible), a messenger - sent to deliver a message not of his own accord but from god who commanded him to say what god wanted him to. He's not god, he's god's postman - which jesus states clearly for everyone and god attests to fully throughout the NT, (Hebrews for example).

13) He predicts his own resurrection on the third day (cf. Mt. 20, 19).

This doesn't in any way help your case. He could have predicted last weeks football results, but it is meaningless to this discussion. But then see here's the thing.. If he was really god then he simply cannot be killed, (unless you're going to claim that for 3 days god was completely non-existant), or ressurrected once dead. The only conceivable way would be for a separate entity to have brought him back to life. We know that jesus is not god because he died and had to be brought back to life. While demigods have often died throughout history, you rarely see someone claiming that the actual boss god was, for a while, dead, (thus non existant).

14) He speaks of himself as Master ("A disciple is not above the teacher, nor a slave above the master")

I fail to see how this aids an argument for him being god. It would help if you'd give me actual passages and chapters.

and King ("My kingdom is not of this world").

Certainly, wasn't it.. at the right hand of god?

"Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God."

The right hand of the throne of god.. He does not sit on the throne of god, because he isn't god, but on the right hand of it - because he is son/messenger and priest of god. Only god gets to sit on the god throne.

"Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. "But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."

See.. jesus, (the son of man - {remember god is not a son of man} - will be sitting on a cloud next to god. So sayeth jesus).

I am actually surprised you missed it considering it's stated so many times.

15) He will separate the husk from the grain in the final Judgement (Mt. 25, 31-46).

Yes, that's his duty as priest.

We could look at Acts: "The God of our fathers raised Jesus from the dead—whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree. God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Savior that he might give repentance and forgiveness of sins to Israel."

See.. jesus is not god. He is on the right hand of god as prince, (not king), and saviour.. That is his duty as bestowed upon him by god, not by himself.

16) Jesus' disciples acknowledge him as God, and he assents gladly: "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God" (Mt. 16, 16); "Of a truth thou art the Son of God"

Strange, given that the disciples in your quotes acknowledge him as the son of god, not god. Surprising you didn't even spot that.

17) Jesus declares himself the Son of God in the Sanhedrim, and the Pharisees demand his crucifiction for this reason (cf. Mt. 26, 64-66).

Once again: 'son of'.. You really should pay attention.

18) Jesus was created as a creature

Well god was not created.. ever. Thus jesus is not god. You've argued against yourself the entire post without even noticing it.

but he is eternally generated by God as the second Person of the Trinity.

What is this gibberish? I understand it was a tricky position to be in, but you must have something better than this surely? What you're actually trying to say is that god has created jesus to be his high priest, to sit on the right hand of god but he is not in any way god.

You're trying desperately to cling to something that even you know is daft.

There are policemen and there are black men- so you are saying that because a man is black he
can not be a policemen! All becase he is a black man and thus can not be anything else but a
balckman?

What a load of old festering nonsense. And you dare say I haven't thought about my argument? While your analogy most certainly isn't even worth a response, I will muster the energy to explain, given your analogy, that while he can be both black and a policeman - if someone else was to come along and claim to be his son, and the policeman then stated that person was his son - destined to sit next to him, having been created by this policeman to begin with *deep breath*, only an ignoramous would sit there and try and claim these two people are the exact same person.

In every instance of the last posters case we see not one instance of him being able to show jesus as being god - or anywhere close to it. I will happily concede that jesus would make demigod status, but that's as far as it goes - and to be honest it's a given considering he's half god/half human.

because by definition a priest intercedes on behalf of others before God.

Yes, and that's what he does. I have no objected to that or argued against it. The bible and the god of the bible indeed attest to it - just like they clearly show that jesus is not god.

 

[Paul299]

The Spirit of God clearly attests the fact that the Scriptures teach that Jesus is God but not the
Father.

When the Jews wanted to stone Jesus for claiming that He was the Son of God and taking on the
name of God “I am” they understood what he implied - for He made himself equal to God by
making those statements.

The denial of this spiritual truth is clear evidence that one is not a child of God or that one has
been lead astray.

Revelation 2:8 These are the words of him who is the First and the Last, who died and came to
life again.

Revelation 1: 8 "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is, and who was, and
who is to come, the Almighty."

Isaiah 44:6
"This is what the LORD says— Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first
and I am the last; apart from me there is no God.

2 Corinthians 13:14
May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy
Spirit be with you all.


John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was
with God in the beginning.
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him
was life, and that life was the light of men....The Word became flesh and made his dwelling
among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only,[d] (the Only Begotten}who
came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Philippians 2:5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus,who, although He
existed in theform of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped (used for
personal Gain),
but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.
Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of
death, even death on a cross. For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him
the name which is above every name,
so that at the name of JesusEVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth
and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord (God), to the
glory of God the Father.

 

[cato]

Rational... Trinity

those are antonyms from my POV.

 

[irichc]

Snake, you must be kidding:

The expression "Son of Man" comes from this passage: "I saw therefore in the vision of the night, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of days and was presented before him. And to him was given dominion and glory and kingdom, that all peoples, nations and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed" (Dn 7, 13-14).

Regarding to any act or word of Jesus showing weakness, remember that when he was glorified he said: "This voice came not because of me, but for your sakes" (Jn. 12, 30).

Plus, Jesus' soul didn't die, since it visited the Hell and led the patriarchs into the light.

Thus, who are you trying to fool?

But you are an atheist defending heretical points of view. We don't need the Bible (you don't even have any right over this text), just reason. However, you have avoided to comment my opening message.

Daniel.


http://www.miscelaneateologica.tk

 

[SnakeLord]

You know, this is silly. For some bizarre reason I seem to be the only one putting any effort into this. I debunk your quotes one by one from start to finish only to then see you come along, ignore it all and then just make some more quotes that label jesus as a son of, lamb of, servant of and everything else you can find that has no relevance to a claim that he is the same being.

I have now done the same in response to Paul's post, but do not consider it worth posting if all I will receive in return is some pedantic statement that I am being 'led astray', am some 'atheist' heretic with no right to use the bible, or some worthless variant thereof.

What I would respect is some attention paid to the biblical quotes I have used, but of course I can expect no such thing, instead having to witness the cowardice of claiming I have no right to even use the bible. Try and be a man and rebuke the quotes I have used instead of lowering this entire discussion to utter stupidity.

Paul299 goes on to say that jesus makes himself equal to god, but the biblical text shows otherwise, as a couple of examples:

"Why call me good?.."

"I am the vine and my father is the gardener"

And so on. These quotes show that jesus by no means considered himself equal with god, and god himself attest to it constantly with the quotes I used earlier: "sits on the right side of god", jesus is a son of man whereas god is not a son of man, etc.

Rebutt these. Tell me how they are wrong - how god has been misquoted when he says he is not a son of man etc and then we can continue. All I can see if 10 pages of you desperately grabbing any 'son of' quote that you can find and then trying to somehow make it appear to imply anything even remotely close to him actually being god.

Thus, who are you trying to fool?

Excuse me? I was trying to engage in an interesting discussion, not be labelled as heretics and lost children by people that don't even have the decency to debate my post - all the while telling me I have no right to use the bible. Fine, I wont use the bible.. Who's jesus? I've never heard of him. Does that make you happy?

But you are an atheist defending heretical points of view.

See my point? Are we debating the issue or the poster? As for defending heretical points of view - are we not talking the very same point of view shared by many christians who denounce any such belief in a trinity, who would then go so far as to label you a false christian with heretical points of view?

So to clear that up quickly, why don't you tell me exactly what makes you the guy with the non-heretical point of view? Thus far you haven't managed anything other than to show jesus and god are not one and the same being.

We don't need the Bible (you don't even have any right over this text), just reason.

A) kindly do not use the word 'reason'. I have not seen it be employed in any of your posts here.

B) Explain why I have no right to use the bible.

C) Explain why we don't need to use the bible considering that is the only source any of this information comes from.

However, you have avoided to comment my opening message.

Something jesus said about planks and eyes comes to mind. Dude, you have avoided my entire posts. However, I will certainly go back and look at it, and then comment on it if you so desire.

Just out of interest: I did indeed scroll up quickly to take a look and stumbled upon something you said before I started posting here. I would like to quote it for you now if I may:

God doesn't "create" reasons or ideas, which are a co-eternal part of his mind. It would be as nonsensical as creating himself.

As 'nonsensical as creating himself' eh? These are your words, which is rather bizarre considering you later tell me, (when I point out that jesus was 'the first-born of all creation'), "Jesus was created as a creature, but he is eternally generated by God as the second Person of the Trinity. So he is the first-born of all creation and God at the same time." - Again, your words, (my emphasis).

What you are actually saying is that god created himself, which given your earlier statement is "nonsensical" - and you would have to agree considering it was you who made that statement - unless you now agree that jesus isn't god. Which is it?

P.S I still have the post I made in rebuttal to Paul's post. If it is warranted to paste it I will.

 

[(Q)]

1) There is no thought without a thinking subject, and vice versa, there is no thinking subject without a thought.

That stands to reason considering it takes a brain to create a thought. But the thought is meaningless without communication and supportive evidence.

2) Nobody can be his own thought, since it implies a contradiction between subject and object. The subject must be always greater than the object.

Does that mean one cannot think about themselves?

What do mean by 'greater' and why must the subject be greater?

3) Nothing is without an activity.

In other words, something is an activity?

a) "The truth is the truth" is the first truth.

Truths are relative to the observer. Ones truths maybe anothers nonsense.

b) It can't exist without an activity, so it must be thought by someone.

Or, it could merely be regurgitated by someone with no thoughts of his own.

c) The Father thinks it, and that truth is the Son.

Herein lies the concept of relative truths. For some, that is nonsense.

d) The Father is greater than the Son. Nevertheless, they are the same reality, as far as there is no thought without a thinking subject and there is no thinking subject without a thought.

That has never been shown to be a reality, hence it is merely ones truth, and ones truth does not necessarily comprise reality.

e) The act of thinking itself is the Holy Spirit.

The act of thinking is the function of the brain. Do spirits have brains?

f) So, I understand the Trinity as "The Thinker (Father) in the Act of Thinking (Holy Spirit) the Thought (Son)".

And that is merely your version of a truth, which most likely is not the truth of others, and has not been shown to be a reality.

Not too shabby logically, but the assumptions are not based in reality, hence it is very much the same logic as describing how unicorns and dragons can exist.