Evidence for God from Science

Kurieuo wrote:Oh, and Jenna....

RickD wrote:

jenna wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:

jenna wrote:

Jac3510 wrote: Yes, you have. Consistenly. To take only one of many, many examples I've read from you, you have portrayed (on more than one occasion) us to believe in "the 3-in-one trinity idea, where 3 beings are in one body." That's not what we believe or what the Trinity states. I could give many, many, many such examples. So perhaps you should learn what we do believe before you tell us you don't believe it, much less before you attempt to critique it.

instead of telling me where i am wrong on what i think you believe, tell me exactly how it is you see the trinity.

We've been doing some of that in this thread, jenna. A good place to start would be by understanding divine simplicity and so the book. But that's really beside the point. You keep telling us that you don't believe the Trinity, that you understand it. My question to you, unanswered still, is whether or not you're open to the possibility that you don't understand it at all. That you've been misinformed as to what the Trinity actually says, where it came from, and why people believe it.

while it is true that i have said i understood where the trinity came from, i never said i understood the trinity itself. i dont, plain and simple. and i dont understand how so any can say they believe in it, yet not even agree on what it actually is. how can something that is supposed to be so basic as to be called a fundamental doctrine, not be viewed and agreed upon as to what it actually is?

Jenna,

Thank you for admitting that. Many times when people argue against something they don't understand, they just dig their heels in and continue to argue. It takes honesty and openness to admit what you did.

Now hopefully you will be open to listening to what others have to say regarding the Trinity.

There are some really good teachers here. Just give them a chance to help you understand. You won't regret it. I promise.

i have always tried to be open and honest. i have no problem admitting it if i do not understand something. the whole trinity concept is one i cannot wrap my head around, and believe me i tried. this is one reason i dont believe in it, as why something so fundamental could be so difficult to grasp. God is not the author of confusion.

How about "accepting a concept that isn't fully understood" because I don't think the Godhead Will be fully understood until we get to heaven. Because it's Through the Godhead's work that anyone Can be in heaven.

There's been an attempt made to explain it 'metaphysically' which is beyond me. Too complicated. Why can't we be satisfied with simply Accepting a mysterious concept.

crochet1949 wrote:There's been an attempt made to explain it 'metaphysically' which is beyond me. Too complicated. Why can't we be satisfied with simply Accepting a mysterious concept.

Because there is a difference in accepting something that is mysterious and something that is self-contradictory. No one should assert something logicall self-contradictory and say we should believe it anyway. As has been said before, nonsense doesn't cease to be nonsense just because you put the words "God can" in front of it.

At the most basic, all you really have to believe with respect to the Trinity is this:

1. There is only one God
2. The Father is God
3. The Son is God
4. The Holy Spirit is God
5. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct Persons

If you affirm all five of those, then you are affirming the biblical data. "The Trinity" is nothing else but an attempt to understand how all five of those statements are true at the same time. So to pick on jenna just because she's been the one we've been talking to, she denies 4, but she also denies 1. In reality, I'm not asking her to believe the Trinity per se. I'm asking her to believe each of those five propositions from Scripture. When she does, and when we start working out how they are all true as best we can, we'll end up at the Trinity. That's evenmore true when you consider the following propositions about Jesus:

6. Jesus is fully man
7. Jesus is fully God
8. Jesus is one Person

What jenna doesn't realize is that she can't affirm all three of these statements (logically anyway) if she rejects the five statements above, because they all hang together. The moment she insists, for instance, that God has a body, then she must deny 1 (as she does), but that means that 6 and 7 cannot both be true.

That's why we need to believe the Trinity and not just accept it as a mystery. It isn't because we all need to be deep theologians or metaphysicians. It's so that we can be sure our beliefs are coherent, that we aren't saying nonsense, and so that we don't either explicitly or implicitly deny other biblical truths.

Jac3510 wrote:

crochet1949 wrote:There's been an attempt made to explain it 'metaphysically' which is beyond me. Too complicated. Why can't we be satisfied with simply Accepting a mysterious concept.

Because there is a difference in accepting something that is mysterious and something that is self-contradictory. No one should assert something logicall self-contradictory and say we should believe it anyway. As has been said before, nonsense doesn't cease to be nonsense just because you put the words "God can" in front of it.

At the most basic, all you really have to believe with respect to the Trinity is this:

1. There is only one God
2. The Father is God
3. The Son is God
4. The Holy Spirit is God
5. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct Persons

If you affirm all five of those, then you are affirming the biblical data. "The Trinity" is nothing else but an attempt to understand how all five of those statements are true at the same time. So to pick on jenna just because she's been the one we've been talking to, she denies 4, but she also denies 1. In reality, I'm not asking her to believe the Trinity per se. I'm asking her to believe each of those five propositions from Scripture. When she does, and when we start working out how they are all true as best we can, we'll end up at the Trinity. That's evenmore true when you consider the following propositions about Jesus:

6. Jesus is fully man
7. Jesus is fully God
8. Jesus is one Person

What jenna doesn't realize is that she can't affirm all three of these statements (logically anyway) if she rejects the five statements above, because they all hang together. The moment she insists, for instance, that God has a body, then she must deny 1 (as she does), but that means that 6 and 7 cannot both be true.

That's why we need to believe the Trinity and not just accept it as a mystery. It isn't because we all need to be deep theologians or metaphysicians. It's so that we can be sure our beliefs are coherent, that we aren't saying nonsense, and so that we don't either explicitly or implicitly deny other biblical truths.

Okay -- THAT explanation I understand and agree with.

crochet1949 wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:

crochet1949 wrote:There's been an attempt made to explain it 'metaphysically' which is beyond me. Too complicated. Why can't we be satisfied with simply Accepting a mysterious concept.

Because there is a difference in accepting something that is mysterious and something that is self-contradictory. No one should assert something logicall self-contradictory and say we should believe it anyway. As has been said before, nonsense doesn't cease to be nonsense just because you put the words "God can" in front of it.

At the most basic, all you really have to believe with respect to the Trinity is this:

1. There is only one God
2. The Father is God
3. The Son is God
4. The Holy Spirit is God
5. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct Persons

If you affirm all five of those, then you are affirming the biblical data. "The Trinity" is nothing else but an attempt to understand how all five of those statements are true at the same time. So to pick on jenna just because she's been the one we've been talking to, she denies 4, but she also denies 1. In reality, I'm not asking her to believe the Trinity per se. I'm asking her to believe each of those five propositions from Scripture. When she does, and when we start working out how they are all true as best we can, we'll end up at the Trinity. That's evenmore true when you consider the following propositions about Jesus:

6. Jesus is fully man
7. Jesus is fully God
8. Jesus is one Person

What jenna doesn't realize is that she can't affirm all three of these statements (logically anyway) if she rejects the five statements above, because they all hang together. The moment she insists, for instance, that God has a body, then she must deny 1 (as she does), but that means that 6 and 7 cannot both be true.

That's why we need to believe the Trinity and not just accept it as a mystery. It isn't because we all need to be deep theologians or metaphysicians. It's so that we can be sure our beliefs are coherent, that we aren't saying nonsense, and so that we don't either explicitly or implicitly deny other biblical truths.

Okay -- THAT explanation I understand and agree with.

God the father,the Son and the Holy Ghost and these three are one. It is simple really,even if we can't see God yet. No need to complicate the trinity.

abelcainsbrother wrote:God the father,the Son and the Holy Ghost and these three are one. It is simple really,even if we can't see God yet. No need to complicate the trinity.

Yet, they're not three in the same sense as being one.

Kurieuo wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:God the father,the Son and the Holy Ghost and these three are one. It is simple really,even if we can't see God yet. No need to complicate the trinity.

Yet, they're not three in the same sense as being one.

All three are one.Why would this be wrong? Nobody has seen God and we are just assuming and speculating when we try to add to it and there is noway to know who is right,until we get to heaven.It is just one of those things we believe by faith.

It's a nitpick that you need a logical qualification since three can't be one in the same sense. Such is where the simplicity fades away and is at the heart of Trinitarian discussion.

Consider if I say there a three apples, yet one apple -- such is a contradiction and nonsensical. Likewise if you're saying the Trinity are three "Gods", yet one God (as JWs often strawman it) -- such too is a contradiction and nonsensical.

The classical social-Trinitarian formulation is that there are three distinct persons yet one God.

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct Persons

I think it is that last part that people really have a problem with - identifying a distinction between PERSONS, and yet them all have a unity of only ONE. How can that be? Because this is impossible with, uh, er - a MAN! But we're dealing with GOD here - a Being unlike ANY other - why would we expect that His makeup wouldn't be incredibly unique?

What I don't get is people that insist that the doctrine of the Trinity is asserting three Gods or polytheism, when most such people fully accept that Jesus is the ONLY Son of His Father, is ALSO God (while also fully man), and that He, throughout His time on earth, communicated deeply with Him. He spoke of His father as directing His words, actions, etc. - and as if He were another PERSON. So, such people, they appear OK with TWO persons/one God, but not with THREE. When I was a young Christian, I hardly ever even thought of the Holy Spirit - even though I now know He lives within me. And how is THAT possible? Knowing my sin nature, that really threw me / throws me (at times). I just thought the Holy Spirit was God's enabling power for believers, or such. But it really doesn't take a lot of Scripture reading to see the attributes of the Holy Spirit are ALSO describing Him as ANOTHER Person, which means that He has to be God as well. Of course, that doesn't mean it still doesn't blow my mind. But so does God taking on human form, and a whole lot of other stuff Scripture reveals!

Consider Matthew 28:19: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit

First, of note, it doesn't say "... and the Spirit of the Father." As a Person, The Holy Spirit is shown to also have a (collective?) name that shows He is also God. In all English Bibles I'm aware of, Holy Spirit is always capitalized (sometimes, as with the King James, as "Holy Ghost) - as this is not an attribute of God, but a Person within His Trinity. I do wonder if that verse could also be correctly translated as, "... in the nameS of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" - anyone know? Jac? Although that really wouldn't seem to change anything as to the meaning.

Kurieuo wrote:It's a nitpick that you need a logical qualification since three can't be one in the same sense. Such is where the simplicity fades away and is at the heart of Trinitarian discussion.

Consider if I say there a three apples, yet one apple -- such is a contradiction and nonsensical. Likewise if you're saying the Trinity are three "Gods", yet one God (as JWs often strawman it) -- such too is a contradiction and nonsensical.

The classical social-Trinitarian formulation is that there are three distinct persons yet one God.

I think I understand the philosophical considerations but we are dealing with God who nobody has seen. Philosophy has its place but it does not trump God's word. The bible can only be approached by faith,that is the only way we can take it and understand it. I really think we are assuming and speculating when we try to add to it. We want to try to break it down for nonbelievers to make it more palatable to them,but sometimes this can do more harm than good and we overlook the simplicity of it,that must be believed by faith anyway.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:It's a nitpick that you need a logical qualification since three can't be one in the same sense. Such is where the simplicity fades away and is at the heart of Trinitarian discussion.

Consider if I say there a three apples, yet one apple -- such is a contradiction and nonsensical. Likewise if you're saying the Trinity are three "Gods", yet one God (as JWs often strawman it) -- such too is a contradiction and nonsensical.

The classical social-Trinitarian formulation is that there are three distinct persons yet one God.

I think I understand the philosophical considerations but we are dealing with God who nobody has seen. Philosophy has its place but it does not trump God's word. The bible can only be approached by faith,that is the only way we can take it and understand it. I really think we are assuming and speculating when we try to add to it. We want to try to break it down for nonbelievers to make it more palatable to them,but sometimes this can do more harm than good and we overlook the simplicity of it,that must be believed by faith anyway.

This is getting further removed, but I disagree that the Bible can only be approached by faith, if by such you mean faith leaves reason behind. In fact, there are many who have made a dog's breakfast of Scripture, based upon whatever their "faith" fancies are. Such people who merely depend upon feelings of faith often make a mockery of Scripture, so much so, that it leaves many thinking Scripture is what you make it and all interpretations are equal. It also leads people astray with incorrect teaching.

Further, while logic and reason can be rightly classified under philosophy, really such is just having common sense. Otherwise, Christianity is no better than any other religion. Yes, one can get all philosophical, but merely defining a common sense understanding should be encouraged when reflecting upon any truth claim.

If truth is on our side, then there is nothing really to fear from reason, philosophy, science, history and the like.

Kurieuo wrote:It's a nitpick that you need a logical qualification since three can't be one in the same sense. Such is where the simplicity fades away and is at the heart of Trinitarian discussion.

Consider if I say there a three apples, yet one apple -- such is a contradiction and nonsensical. Likewise if you're saying the Trinity are three "Gods", yet one God (as JWs often strawman it) -- such too is a contradiction and nonsensical.

The classical social-Trinitarian formulation is that there are three distinct persons yet one God.

How about the fact that an apple has a core and the fruit and the outer covering. Three parts / one apple. All three parts are needed to make the apple reproduce / edible.

crochet1949 wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:It's a nitpick that you need a logical qualification since three can't be one in the same sense. Such is where the simplicity fades away and is at the heart of Trinitarian discussion.

Consider if I say there a three apples, yet one apple -- such is a contradiction and nonsensical. Likewise if you're saying the Trinity are three "Gods", yet one God (as JWs often strawman it) -- such too is a contradiction and nonsensical.

The classical social-Trinitarian formulation is that there are three distinct persons yet one God.

How about the fact that an apple has a core and the fruit and the outer covering. Three parts / one apple. All three parts are needed to make the apple reproduce / edible.

To use that analogy, we are then saying that each person in the Trinity is one-third God (or at least, that each make up a certain percentage of God's nature). Scripture attribute full divinity to each person within the Godhead. Consider the following:

• The doctrine of the Trinity does not divide God into three parts. The Bible is clear that all three Persons are each one-hundred-percent God. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each fully God. For example, Colossians 2:9 says of Christ, “in him all the fullness of deity dwells in bodily form.” We should not think of God as a “pie” cut into three pieces, each piece representing a Person. This would make each Person less than fully God and thus not God at all. Rather, “the being of each Person is equal to the whole being of God” (Grudem, Systematic Theology, 1994, page 255). The divine essence is not something that is divided between the three persons, but is fully in all three persons without being divided into “parts.”
  
  Thus, the Son is not one-third of the being of God; he is all of the being of God. The Father is not one-third of the being of God; he is all of the being of God. And likewise with the Holy Spirit. Thus, as Wayne Grudem writes, “When we speak of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit together we are not speaking of any greater being than when we speak of the Father alone, the Son alone, or the Holy Spirit alone” (Ibid., 252).