Maimonides on the Trinity

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

No I'm not saying that.

As you say, it does not matter if we know all about it.

It comes down to whether or not I feel the need to believe that God is an exalted homosapien. I'm losing the ability to feel the need.....

There is no need to "to believe that God is an exalted homosapien." Has anyone claimed that you need to beleive in it? IF so for what purpose? If you think they have perhaps you need to think on why I am asking the questions I am asking. THe scriptures do tell us that we are the offpring of God. ANd the words chosen in greek mean that we are the same species as God.

And with that loss, I'm also feeling a sense of awe about things I don't fully understand. But it is hard to describe and I'm out of time.

Well perhaps one day we will all figure it out or learn it.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Not this again.

Let me get out my "Essence-o-Meter" and see if the essence is divided or not. Yep. Essence is divided. Justin is wrong.

I don't even know what "essence" means and neither does anyone else. Platonic nonsense.

Essance seems to have no definition. Some have tried to tell me and when I finially got it another mainstream christian tells me that I don't understand. As I recall there is nothing in the bible that says "all 3 share they same essance".

[volgadon]

And Maimonides the philosopher could see thhat three individuals are still three individuals, essence or no.

[saemo]

And Maimonides the philosopher could see thhat three individuals are still three individuals, essence or no.

As I said, this argument was addressed in 165AD. The response has not changed.

The inability for Maimonides or any other individual person to accept Christian teaching of One God in three Persons, does not make the Trinity more than one God. All who accept the Holy Trinity understand we're talking about One God. Singular.

LDS on the other hand, do not teach One God. So I am still failing to see the comparison.

[mfbukowski]

As I said, this argument was addressed in 165AD. The response has not changed.

You are of course exactly right. And it still does not make sense. Logic and linguistic understanding has advanced immeasurably since 165 AD but the argument is still the same.

I'm glad we still don't use the medical techniques prescribed in 165 AD.

Things are not necessarily good or true because they are old. But this seems to be your persistent mantra.

[zeezrom]

You are of course exactly right. And it still does not make sense. Logic and linguistic understanding has advanced immeasurably since 165 AD but the argument is still the same.

I'm glad we still don't use the medical techniques prescribed in 165 AD.

Things are not necessarily good or true because they are old. But this seems to be your persistent mantra.

I'm very green when it comes to Christian history but I recall much of the NT traces back to around this same year. Is that not correct?

Is the NT considered good and true?

[zeezrom]

snip

saemo: I wish LDS would consider using the picture of your avatar. I like it. Who painted it?

[Glenn101]

Are you admitting you know all about the meaning of being one as they are? How can we comprehend this? Are we expected to?

I do not know all about being one as they are. I do not know all about how a man and a woman can become "one flesh" (Genesis 21:24). However those scriptures would seem to argue against a literal oneness and tend more towards a unity of purpose that the LDS teach. I do not think that we will comprehend all things of the spirit fully here on earth. We are not perfected yet. However, I do think that we are not left with an completely incomprehensible "mystery" either.

Glenn

[mfbukowski]

I'm very green when it comes to Christian history but I recall much of the NT traces back to around this same year. Is that not correct?

Is the NT considered good and true?

What does that have to do with anything? Platonism is Platonism. The New Testament is the NT.

We have scientific journals and comic books published "around the same year", but which would you base your life on?

That's a variety of the "if it's old it's true" (or if it's new it's false- doesnt matter) point of view.

[mfbukowski]

saemo: I wish LDS would consider using the picture of your avatar. I like it. Who painted it?

http://forums.catholic.com/

[saemo]

saemo: I wish LDS would consider using the picture of your avatar. I like it. Who painted it?

I like it too.

I clipped it out of Bouguereau's "Song of the Angels"...