Understanding the Trinity

[Byblos]

God is spirit, yes, I have never once, at any place, passage or time stated otherwise, nor have I ever once stated that God was flesh and blood. The only statement I have made here is that God has a form, a shape, and we as humans are made in the likeness of that shape.

But form implies shape, and shape implies defining features which means it is limited in space-time and therefore contingent upon it. I seriously implore you to consider the implications of such a position that is rejected by most (if not all) theist and atheist philosophers alike. It makes God utterly incoherent.

actually, no, it doesnt make God incoherent. and yes, having a shape implies features, which i have said before. however, to be incoherent He would need to be a shapeless, formless blob, which for some reason, is the impression i am getting that you think He is?

Shapeless, yes. Formless, yes. A blob, no, for a blob implies shape and form.

Jenna, please look into William Lane Craig's kalam cosmological argument (which, ordinarily I wouldn't recommend but I think is most appropriate in this case). The necessary conclusion we draw from that logical argument is that God is timeless, spaceless, immaterial, immensly powerful unembodied mind. That is the God of the Bible that spoke reality into existence.

ok, then, so then what image are we created after? please note that an image being something you can see. if God is nothing more than an immensely powerful unembodied mind, then why did He choose the forms we are in now to make us IN HIS IMAGE? would He not choose an unembodied mind?

Now THAT, my lady, is a great question. Now you're thinking critically. But first things first, please look up the KCA then we'll talk.

[Storyteller]

God is spirit, yes, I have never once, at any place, passage or time stated otherwise, nor have I ever once stated that God was flesh and blood. The only statement I have made here is that God has a form, a shape, and we as humans are made in the likeness of that shape.

But form implies shape, and shape implies defining features which means it is limited in space-time and therefore contingent upon it. I seriously implore you to consider the implications of such a position that is rejected by most (if not all) theist and atheist philosophers alike. It makes God utterly incoherent.

actually, no, it doesnt make God incoherent. and yes, having a shape implies features, which i have said before. however, to be incoherent He would need to be a shapeless, formless blob, which for some reason, is the impression i am getting that you think He is?

Shapeless, yes. Formless, yes. A blob, no, for a blob implies shape and form.

Jenna, please look into William Lane Craig's kalam cosmological argument (which, ordinarily I wouldn't recommend but I think is most appropriate in this case). The necessary conclusion we draw from that logical argument is that God is timeless, spaceless, immaterial, immensly powerful unembodied mind. That is the God of the Bible that spoke reality into existence.

ok, then, so then what image are we created after? please note that an image being something you can see. if God is nothing more than an immensely powerful unembodied mind, then why did He choose the forms we are in now to make us IN HIS IMAGE? would He not choose an unembodied mind?

Spiritual image, not physical image.
Perhaps we are given these physical bodies to experience life, to interact and experience life physically.
I disagree that an image is something you can see. I have an image of God but it isn't something I see, it's something I feel.

[Kurieuo]

But, how did God talk is such requires material form?

Jenna, I'd like to point out that you previously conceded that the image of God isn't primarily to do with shape.

Also, I think you're overlooking God's argument in Deut that he has no form, using the event of Moses as illustrative of such.

this is the line of thinking that gets me, lol. first i am told that God can take any shape or form He pleases. Then i am told that I am underestimating God. then i am asked how did God speak without material form? it seems YOU are the one asserting God has no material form. (correct me if i am wrong) so if He has no form, how does/did He speak? who is the one underestimating God?

Seriously? I'm responding to and challenging your claims, but if you'd prefer to now believe that God can speak without material form then I have no further argument with you in this respect.

[PaulSacramento]

Jenna,
you keep bring up the "In His image" thing.
Do you think it means in His image LITERALLY?

[jenna]

But, how did God talk is such requires material form?

Jenna, I'd like to point out that you previously conceded that the image of God isn't primarily to do with shape.

Also, I think you're overlooking God's argument in Deut that he has no form, using the event of Moses as illustrative of such.

this is the line of thinking that gets me, lol. first i am told that God can take any shape or form He pleases. Then i am told that I am underestimating God. then i am asked how did God speak without material form? it seems YOU are the one asserting God has no material form. (correct me if i am wrong) so if He has no form, how does/did He speak? who is the one underestimating God?

Seriously? I'm responding to and challenging your claims, but if you'd prefer to now believe that God can speak without material form then I have no further argument with you in this respect.

now wait just a minute here!!! you want to tell me how when and where exactly i said God can speak without material form? I DID NOT SAY THIS. but you are correct, i guess you and i are done with this, since you are not even reading what i am saying correctly.

[jenna]

Jenna,
you keep bring up the "In His image" thing.
Do you think it means in His image LITERALLY?

in shape, yes I do. we have the form of God.

[PaulSacramento]

So God looks human?

[jenna]

But form implies shape, and shape implies defining features which means it is limited in space-time and therefore contingent upon it. I seriously implore you to consider the implications of such a position that is rejected by most (if not all) theist and atheist philosophers alike. It makes God utterly incoherent.

actually, no, it doesnt make God incoherent. and yes, having a shape implies features, which i have said before. however, to be incoherent He would need to be a shapeless, formless blob, which for some reason, is the impression i am getting that you think He is?

Shapeless, yes. Formless, yes. A blob, no, for a blob implies shape and form.

Jenna, please look into William Lane Craig's kalam cosmological argument (which, ordinarily I wouldn't recommend but I think is most appropriate in this case). The necessary conclusion we draw from that logical argument is that God is timeless, spaceless, immaterial, immensly powerful unembodied mind. That is the God of the Bible that spoke reality into existence.

ok, then, so then what image are we created after? please note that an image being something you can see. if God is nothing more than an immensely powerful unembodied mind, then why did He choose the forms we are in now to make us IN HIS IMAGE? would He not choose an unembodied mind?

Spiritual image, not physical image.
Perhaps we are given these physical bodies to experience life, to interact and experience life physically.
I disagree that an image is something you can see. I have an image of God but it isn't something I see, it's something I feel.

but actually it is something you can see. when you think of God, do you not have an image in your mind? real or supposed, you can still "see it", can you not?

[jenna]

So God looks human?

God has a face, hands, feet, eyes, and all the same characteristics that we do. He has a human form, even though He is spirit.this is what "made in His image" means.

[jenna]

But form implies shape, and shape implies defining features which means it is limited in space-time and therefore contingent upon it. I seriously implore you to consider the implications of such a position that is rejected by most (if not all) theist and atheist philosophers alike. It makes God utterly incoherent.

actually, no, it doesnt make God incoherent. and yes, having a shape implies features, which i have said before. however, to be incoherent He would need to be a shapeless, formless blob, which for some reason, is the impression i am getting that you think He is?

Shapeless, yes. Formless, yes. A blob, no, for a blob implies shape and form.

Jenna, please look into William Lane Craig's kalam cosmological argument (which, ordinarily I wouldn't recommend but I think is most appropriate in this case). The necessary conclusion we draw from that logical argument is that God is timeless, spaceless, immaterial, immensly powerful unembodied mind. That is the God of the Bible that spoke reality into existence.

ok, then, so then what image are we created after? please note that an image being something you can see. if God is nothing more than an immensely powerful unembodied mind, then why did He choose the forms we are in now to make us IN HIS IMAGE? would He not choose an unembodied mind?

Now THAT, my lady, is a great question. Now you're thinking critically. But first things first, please look up the KCA then we'll talk.

KCA?

[PaulSacramento]

So God looks human?

God has a face, hands, feet, eyes, and all the same characteristics that we do. He has a human form, even though He is spirit.this is what "made in His image" means.

And you think that Jew, reading / hearing those words 3000 years ago or more, would have thought the same thing?
I ask because it is to THEM that those words were written to.

[jenna]

So God looks human?

God has a face, hands, feet, eyes, and all the same characteristics that we do. He has a human form, even though He is spirit.this is what "made in His image" means.

And you think that Jew, reading / hearing those words 3000 years ago or more, would have thought the same thing?
I ask because it is to THEM that those words were written to.

not so, God's word is for us, today, yesterday, and for tomorrow. it wasn't made for one specific group of people, but for all man. if i am reading this correctly, you are saying the Jews were made in God's image, but no other people were?

[Storyteller]

actually, no, it doesnt make God incoherent. and yes, having a shape implies features, which i have said before. however, to be incoherent He would need to be a shapeless, formless blob, which for some reason, is the impression i am getting that you think He is?

Shapeless, yes. Formless, yes. A blob, no, for a blob implies shape and form.

Jenna, please look into William Lane Craig's kalam cosmological argument (which, ordinarily I wouldn't recommend but I think is most appropriate in this case). The necessary conclusion we draw from that logical argument is that God is timeless, spaceless, immaterial, immensly powerful unembodied mind. That is the God of the Bible that spoke reality into existence.

ok, then, so then what image are we created after? please note that an image being something you can see. if God is nothing more than an immensely powerful unembodied mind, then why did He choose the forms we are in now to make us IN HIS IMAGE? would He not choose an unembodied mind?

Spiritual image, not physical image.
Perhaps we are given these physical bodies to experience life, to interact and experience life physically.
I disagree that an image is something you can see. I have an image of God but it isn't something I see, it's something I feel.

but actually it is something you can see. when you think of God, do you not have an image in your mind? real or supposed, you can still "see it", can you not?

Nope, and I'm not being difficult. I genuinely don't "see" God, just feel Him. I suppose at a push I might see Christ but Christ is God anyway.
I have no need to "see" I feel. I have never been a visual person, maybe thats why, idk.

[Byblos]

ok, then, so then what image are we created after? please note that an image being something you can see. if God is nothing more than an immensely powerful unembodied mind, then why did He choose the forms we are in now to make us IN HIS IMAGE? would He not choose an unembodied mind?

Now THAT, my lady, is a great question. Now you're thinking critically. But first things first, please look up the KCA then we'll talk.

KCA?

Click on the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Pay close attention to the necessary conclusion.

[B. W.]

I think you have forgotten one very important part of the orange here. one can never even have oranges with the seed. and that is exactly what the HS is. a seed that is planted within us by God, so that we can be grown and nurtured by His word. while the seed is not the orange itself, it has the possible potential to be a good, fruit bearing tree given the time and care. but if you let it wither and die, it is useless. (please forgive me the whole bearing fruit-thing)

The is all orange too an orange tree...

The Holy Spirit is liken to the Juice - all 100 percent in essence - orange with a different personality...

Jesus describes the Holy Spirit akin to living waters by the way...

Next: The Holy Spirit is not a force, nor an angelic being

but God who can be and does the following

Isa 63:10 NKJV grieved...

Roman 8:27 Holy Spirit has a mind and searches out matters 1 Co2:10 and 1 Co 12:11..
He speaks Acts 8:29 and loves Romans 15:30 and He prays Romans 8:26...

He is called God Acts 5:3,4.

He teaches, convicts, tells of things to come John 16:8-16...