Evidence for God from Science

Question Jenna. Do the Father and Son share in the same self-existing and eternal nature?

jenna wrote:

Byblos wrote:

jenna wrote:

Byblos wrote:

jenna wrote: how is my question any more nonsensical than what you asked me?

I told you how, because the immaterial is not bound by space-time.

jenna wrote:anyhow, yes, they have 2 distinct minds, personalities, and wills, but they are in accordance with one another.

What does that mean, they are in accordance with one another? Does that mean they can never disagree? Why not? After all, they do have their own separate divine wills, it would make no sense whatsoever to have distinct wills and not have distinguishable differences. And if they don't have distinguishable differences they must be one and the same but that's not possible because they animate different bodies.

Not so. it is made plain that there are two distinct beings in the Godhead. The Father is greater than the Son (John 14:28). if they were just one being, how can one be greater than Himself? the reason They are one is that They are in complete agreement and accordance on everything. a house divided cannot stand. In John 17:11, here it is said "that they may be one, as We are". here it is meant that they be in complete agreement on everything, the same as the Father and Son are.

Surely you can see how believing in two distinct divine beings with distinct wills, even if they are in perfect accord, is polytheism, right?

no, i dont, because I believe there is ONE God. just like my family is ONE FAMILY. it simply has more than one member in that family. I consider God to be one family, God the Father, and God the Son. Together they make one.

I know you believe that. But what you believe and what the theology entails are two different things. A familiy is not a nature jenna, like what it means to be human or female or divine. The fact is that you believe in two distinct divine entities and that, by any rational measure, is believing in mutiple gods. I hope and pray you reflect on that.

The last word is yours but first I want to thank you for an honest and civil discourse. It is rather refreshing.

Happy New Year to all.

Kurieuo wrote:Question Jenna. Do the Father and Son share in the same self-existing and eternal nature?

do you mean do they have the same nature? yes, they have both been eternally existing.

Byblos wrote:

jenna wrote:

Byblos wrote:

jenna wrote:

Byblos wrote:
I told you how, because the immaterial is not bound by space-time.



What does that mean, they are in accordance with one another? Does that mean they can never disagree? Why not? After all, they do have their own separate divine wills, it would make no sense whatsoever to have distinct wills and not have distinguishable differences. And if they don't have distinguishable differences they must be one and the same but that's not possible because they animate different bodies.

Not so. it is made plain that there are two distinct beings in the Godhead. The Father is greater than the Son (John 14:28). if they were just one being, how can one be greater than Himself? the reason They are one is that They are in complete agreement and accordance on everything. a house divided cannot stand. In John 17:11, here it is said "that they may be one, as We are". here it is meant that they be in complete agreement on everything, the same as the Father and Son are.

Surely you can see how believing in two distinct divine beings with distinct wills, even if they are in perfect accord, is polytheism, right?

no, i dont, because I believe there is ONE God. just like my family is ONE FAMILY. it simply has more than one member in that family. I consider God to be one family, God the Father, and God the Son. Together they make one.

I know you believe that. But what you believe and what the theology entails are two different things. A familiy is not a nature jenna, like what it means to be human or female or divine. The fact is that you believe in two distinct divine entities and that, by any rational measure, is believing in mutiple gods. I hope and pray you reflect on that.

The last word is yours but first I want to thank you for an honest and civil discourse. It is rather refreshing.

Happy New Year to all.

i want to thank you also for a good discourse, but i wanted to ask you one final question. what exactly is your definition of the trinity?

jenna wrote:

Byblos wrote:

jenna wrote:

Byblos wrote:

jenna wrote: Not so. it is made plain that there are two distinct beings in the Godhead. The Father is greater than the Son (John 14:28). if they were just one being, how can one be greater than Himself? the reason They are one is that They are in complete agreement and accordance on everything. a house divided cannot stand. In John 17:11, here it is said "that they may be one, as We are". here it is meant that they be in complete agreement on everything, the same as the Father and Son are.

Surely you can see how believing in two distinct divine beings with distinct wills, even if they are in perfect accord, is polytheism, right?

no, i dont, because I believe there is ONE God. just like my family is ONE FAMILY. it simply has more than one member in that family. I consider God to be one family, God the Father, and God the Son. Together they make one.

I know you believe that. But what you believe and what the theology entails are two different things. A familiy is not a nature jenna, like what it means to be human or female or divine. The fact is that you believe in two distinct divine entities and that, by any rational measure, is believing in mutiple gods. I hope and pray you reflect on that.

The last word is yours but first I want to thank you for an honest and civil discourse. It is rather refreshing.

Happy New Year to all.

i want to thank you also for a good discourse, but i wanted to ask you one final question. what exactly is your definition of the trinity?

The Christian doctrine of the Trinity (Latin: Trinitas, lit. 'triad', from trinus, "threefold") holds that God is three consubstantial persons or hypostases—the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit—as "one God in three Divine Persons".

RickD wrote:

jenna wrote:

Byblos wrote:

jenna wrote:

Byblos wrote:
Surely you can see how believing in two distinct divine beings with distinct wills, even if they are in perfect accord, is polytheism, right?

no, i dont, because I believe there is ONE God. just like my family is ONE FAMILY. it simply has more than one member in that family. I consider God to be one family, God the Father, and God the Son. Together they make one.

I know you believe that. But what you believe and what the theology entails are two different things. A familiy is not a nature jenna, like what it means to be human or female or divine. The fact is that you believe in two distinct divine entities and that, by any rational measure, is believing in mutiple gods. I hope and pray you reflect on that.

The last word is yours but first I want to thank you for an honest and civil discourse. It is rather refreshing.

Happy New Year to all.

i want to thank you also for a good discourse, but i wanted to ask you one final question. what exactly is your definition of the trinity?

The Christian doctrine of the Trinity (Latin: Trinitas, lit. 'triad', from trinus, "threefold") holds that God is three consubstantial persons or hypostases—the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit—as "one God in three Divine Persons".

so how is this any different than one God in two Divine Persons? other than just one less person? how can you say I believe in polytheism when it appears you do the same? the only difference i see is that you believe the Holy Spirit is a being and I dont.

jenna wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Question Jenna. Do the Father and Son share in the same self-existing and eternal nature?

do you mean do they have the same nature? yes, they have both been eternally existing.

Do they share in the same omnipresence, being everywhere and all-pervasive?

jenna wrote:

RickD wrote:

jenna wrote:

Byblos wrote:

jenna wrote: no, i dont, because I believe there is ONE God. just like my family is ONE FAMILY. it simply has more than one member in that family. I consider God to be one family, God the Father, and God the Son. Together they make one.

I know you believe that. But what you believe and what the theology entails are two different things. A familiy is not a nature jenna, like what it means to be human or female or divine. The fact is that you believe in two distinct divine entities and that, by any rational measure, is believing in mutiple gods. I hope and pray you reflect on that.

The last word is yours but first I want to thank you for an honest and civil discourse. It is rather refreshing.

Happy New Year to all.

i want to thank you also for a good discourse, but i wanted to ask you one final question. what exactly is your definition of the trinity?

The Christian doctrine of the Trinity (Latin: Trinitas, lit. 'triad', from trinus, "threefold") holds that God is three consubstantial persons or hypostases—the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit—as "one God in three Divine Persons".

so how is this any different than one God in two Divine Persons? other than just one less person? how can you say I believe in polytheism when it appears you do the same? the only difference i see is that you believe the Holy Spirit is a being and I dont.

Jenna,

I didn't say you believe in polytheism. Jac said that your position necessarily entails polytheism, here.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying the Holy Spirit is a being. At least not a separate being. The trinitarian God, is one being(or literally being), in three persons. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all persons.

Hope that helps.

RickD wrote:

jenna wrote:

RickD wrote:

jenna wrote:

Byblos wrote:
I know you believe that. But what you believe and what the theology entails are two different things. A familiy is not a nature jenna, like what it means to be human or female or divine. The fact is that you believe in two distinct divine entities and that, by any rational measure, is believing in mutiple gods. I hope and pray you reflect on that.

The last word is yours but first I want to thank you for an honest and civil discourse. It is rather refreshing.

Happy New Year to all.

i want to thank you also for a good discourse, but i wanted to ask you one final question. what exactly is your definition of the trinity?

The Christian doctrine of the Trinity (Latin: Trinitas, lit. 'triad', from trinus, "threefold") holds that God is three consubstantial persons or hypostases—the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit—as "one God in three Divine Persons".

so how is this any different than one God in two Divine Persons? other than just one less person? how can you say I believe in polytheism when it appears you do the same? the only difference i see is that you believe the Holy Spirit is a being and I dont.

Jenna,

I didn't say you believe in polytheism. Jac said that your position necessarily entails polytheism, here.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying the Holy Spirit is a being. At least not a separate being. The trinitarian God, is one being(or literally being), in three persons. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all persons.

Hope that helps.

jsut to be clear, you didnt say i believe in polytheism. whether or not you believe i do, Jac says i do? and tell me, what is the difference in a being and a person?

jenna wrote: jsut to be clear, you didnt say i believe in polytheism. whether or not you believe i do, Jac says i do? and tell me, what is the difference in a being and a person?

It does lead to polytheism (actually atheism) because in this case God is a being of many (many having any value greater than 1) instead of being itself, i.e. existence itself of which there can be one and only one. It makes those beings, though divine, contingent upon whatever it is that makes them a being. And contingent gods are no gods at all, therefore atheism.

Just one more clarification jenna, if you don't mind. You stated that God the Father and God the Son exist from eternity. You also stated that God the Father exists in a visible form from eternity and God the Son took on human form at the incarnation. So my question to you then is, in what form did God the Son exist from eternity up to the incarnation?

Byblos wrote:

jenna wrote: jsut to be clear, you didnt say i believe in polytheism. whether or not you believe i do, Jac says i do? and tell me, what is the difference in a being and a person?

It does lead to polytheism (actually atheism) because in this case God is a being of many (many having any value greater than 1) instead of being itself, i.e. existence itself of which there can be one and only one. It makes those beings, though divine, contingent upon whatever it is that makes them a being. And contingent gods are no gods at all, therefore atheism.

Just one more clarification jenna, if you don't mind. You stated that God the Father and God the Son exist from eternity. You also stated that God the Father exists in a visible form from eternity and God the Son took on human form at the incarnation. So my question to you then is, in what form did God the Son exist from eternity up to the incarnation?

the same as God the Father. visible spirit form. now please make no mistake, God is spirit, and is most of the time invisible for humans. but when He does choose to make Himself visible, His form is like we are.
and my question above was not really answered either. what is the difference between a being and a person?

Jenna's position does not entail polytheism. Her position is polytheism. Her position entails atheism. If jenna claims monotheism, it is only because she misdefines monotheism

Jenna, do you understand the definition of monotheism is that there is only one being who is God? The moment you have more than one being called God, you are not a monotheist.

Regarding your repeated analogy to humans, this illustrates your polytheism. You are correct that there are many beings that share what we call the human nature. That is, there are many humans (about seven billion now, I think). So we could say that we are polyhumanists--the belief in many humans. If we believed there was only one human being, we would call ourselves monohumanists. As an aside, there are actually people who deny that there are billions of individual humans. They, in fact, deny that are any individual things whatsoever, that everything is really just the same thing. They are called monists.

Anyway, so by your family analogy, there are multiple beings who are examples of one nature--the human nature--so there are many beings called humans. Your view of God is that there are many beings (two, in this case), that share one nature--the divine nature--so that there is more than one being called God. In other words, you are a polytheist. It doesn't matter if if you believe in two Gods or three or three hundred million. More than one God is more than one God, which means you are not a monotheist. More than one = poly. You are a polytheist.

Now, you may not accept the necessarily logic that polytheism entails atheism, and so I don't call you an atheist. I say your theology is essentially atheistic and that you just are not being logically consistent with your own position. But you are, absolutely, a polytheist. You don't get to say you're a monotheist by redefining monotheism than I could call myself a Muslim by redefining a Muslim as someone who believes that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.

Jac,

Maybe you could explain the difference between being and person, so Jenna may be able to understand.

RickD wrote:Jac,

Maybe you could explain the difference between being and person, so Jenna may be able to understand.

Agh, posting from my phone, typed a long post then accidently hit the stupid back button. Why, oh why do they not have a forward button on android?

Anyway, I will let Jac tackle the formal definitions but here's my take on it.

A being and a person cannot be compared and contrasted unless they are qualified. A human being and a human person are one and the same. A person is not necessarily a human person, it can also be a divine person. On the other hand, a divine person and a divine being are not the same. There can be more than one divine persons. There can be one and only one divine being who is being itself. The reason is very simple, really. God exists a se, absolutly perfect, lacking nothing. If there were two gods then there must be some feature that one has and the other lacks. If not, they would be identical in every respect and, therefore, one and the same. But if one lacks something then he would not be God for God is perfection, lacking nothing.

That's fair, Rick.

Jenna, I said above that monotheism isn't merely the belief that there is one kind of thing called "God" of which there are several beings--i.e., two beings (The Father and the Son) that are both individuals of this "kind" of thing. But let me offer a defense of the position you've taken. Muslims and Jews will often accuse Trinitarians of polytheism on exactly the same grounds I'm saying that you are a polytheist. They say, "You say there is a being called the Father who is God, a being called the Son who is God, and a being called the Holy Spirit who is God. But that means you believe there are three beings who are God, which is polytheism!"

The response Christians have have always given is to distinguish between a person and a being. Put simply, being and person are not the same thing.

For example, rocks are beings. Are they persons? Of course not. So it's possible for something to be a being and not a person. And it's also possible for a being to be multiple persons. So let's define both terms:

Being - that which exists (slightly more technically, an instantiation or actualization of some nature)*
Person - an individual substance of a rational nature

Rocks are beings (they exist), but they don't have a rational nature. Human beings are beings (we exist), and we are individuals of a rational nature. Thus, we are persons. As an aside, this has ethical implications--babies have rational natures, for instance, even if they can't express that rationality yet. So they are persons and deserve all the rights and protections of persons. But notice that our being is not the same thing as our nature. The fact that I exist (my being) is different from the kind of existence that I have (my rational nature). One last example: the god Odin is an individual substance of a rational nature. But he's not a person, because he doesn't have being (i.e., he doesn't exist!).

When you apply all this to the Trinity, we start with monotheism. There is only one being called God. There are not three different beings called God. Rather, there are three Persons who are all the same being. Remember, Person is not the same as Being! Now, I can offer you a detailed explanation how that works out, but the only logical point you really need to grasp is that being and person are not the same thing, so there's no reason that every person has to be equal to their being. We know that there are some beings that are not persons. And when we look at God, we realize that there are some beings (God) that are more than one Person. That's why your family analogy fails, by the way. The Father and Son are not God in the way that my daughter and I are both human. In our case, she is a being, and I am a being; she is a person, and I am a person. We both share a common nature: humanity. But in God, it is wrong to say that the Father is a being and that the Son is a being; that the Father is a person and that the Son is a person; and that they both share a common nature: divinity. There, is rather, only one Being, which is God, and that Being is three Persons (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit).

--------------------

*One more aside, there are further distinctions between a being, the general notion of being, Being Itself, and being with a being. We can explore those differences if it becomes necessary.