Arianism Vs. the Trinity

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

At first, I thought this would be an excellent thread. Not even a page in, condescension and pride have overthrown the peace. Very little can be accomplished in dialogue when superiority is what is being defended.

Why would I want to engage anyone who would use that which I hold to be sacred as a wall of proof texts? My pearls are not blunt instruments meant to strike blows.

Why would I want to clarify or defend my position when mockery of it is your position? My pearls are not target dummies.

What is the purpose of theological discourse? To know God. Can we know God pridefully? No, for pride is contrary to charity, and God is love.

What are you talking about? Who has mocked your position? What I don't understand is your postion. I am looking for a clear explination of it and it generally resorts to special definitions of the word nature and being. If you don't like a discussion that is fine, but don't call a discussion a mockery simply because we don't agree with yours or Coolroks beliefs.

[Vance]

From my LDS JEDI KNIGHT Archive - http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/oneness.htm

Excellent article. Thanks for posting.

[Vance]

Uh no. The logic is quite clear. Once again:

Premise 1: God is spirit (John 4:24)

Premise 2: A spirit does not have flesh and bones (Luke 24:39)

Conclusion: God does not have flesh and bones, i.e., is incorporeal.

Quod erat demonstrandum

Shifted premise.

New premise "incorporeal" means "immaterial".

Still without support, still rejected.

You are a spirit within a body. Does that mean you are 1)incorporeal, 2)immaterial?

Edited for clarity.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Uh no. The logic is quite clear. Once again:

Premise 1: God is spirit (John 4:24)

Premise 2: A spirit does not have flesh and bones (Luke 24:39)

Conclusion: God does not have flesh and bones, i.e., is incorporeal.

Quod erat demonstrandum

Nothing in there demands what you think it does. Non-sequitur.

The logic is simply not there and you have to read something into the text to get that "not flesh and bones" means "immaterial" or "incorporeal". I really see nothing in the bible that suggest such things exsist.

[Anakin7]

Excellent article. Thanks for posting.

I Live to serve, You are welcome.I have much more to share but must leave for work. May True Grace be with you.

Salvation is in Christ the person.

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

[Brennin]

Shifted premise.

New premise "incorporeal" means "immaterial".

Still without support, still rejected.

There is no "shifted" premise or "new" premise because that is exactly what I posted previously.

You are a spirit within a body.

Whether or not I am "a spirit within a body," I am not a spirit.

Edited upon rereading.

[Brennin]

#1 - Adjectevical without the definate article is describing an attribute not totality of nature

#2 - Cannot apply to #1 due to its attribution to an attribute.

There have been Studies done on GOD'S coporeality which I suggest you investigate.

May Grace be with you.

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

John 4:24

?????? ? ???? ??? ???? ????????????? ????? ?? ???????? ??? ??????? ??? ??????????

??????

[Vance]

Whether or not I am "a spirit within a body," I am not a spirit.

Is that like being "a person within a house", but not a person?

You are a spirit, but you are not spirit.

You are a spirit within a body, so you are a spirit. Simple logic.

A spirit only doesn't have a body of flesh.

Still waiting for support for the "incorporeal" means "immaterial" premise. I won't hold my breath.

[Vance]

John 4:24

?????? ? ???? ??? ???? ????????????? ????? ?? ???????? ??? ??????? ??? ??????????

spirit the God and the ones-worshiping him in spirit and to-truth must to-be-worshiping.

So, now what?

Edited to add,

Does this mean that we have to be a spirit (without a body) to worship God?

[Brennin]

spirit the God and the ones-worshiping him in spirit and to-truth must to-be-worshiping.

So, now what?

Now you are suppose to click on the link to Liddell & Scott and notice the following:

noun

In John 4:24 spirit is a qualitative noun.

[Brennin]

You are a spirit within a body, so you are a spirit. Simple logic.

Uh no.

Still waiting for support for the "incorporeal" means "immaterial" premise. I won't hold my breath.

From Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: in

[Vance]

Now you are suppose to click on the link to Liddell & Scott and notice the following:

noun

In John 4:24 spirit is a qualitative noun.

So, does this mean that you have to be a spirit, a qualitative noun without a body, to worship God?

Oh sweet death.

James 2:26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, . . .

[Brennin]

So, does this mean that you have to be a spirit, a qualitative noun without a body, to worship God?

Whoo-boy. In John 4:24, ???????? is a dative of manner.

[Vance]

Whoo-boy. In John 4:24, ???????? is a dative of manner.

Well thank you for that.

I wonder if you have read the previous thread, from which this one was derived.

It is found here.

Where I posted this.

page__view__findpost__p__1208903954

[Vance]

Uh no.

From Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: in

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Uh no.

From Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: in

[Brennin]

Ha this is great. Your best proof is from websters that "not having a body of flesh and bones" or being a spirit means you are incorpreal. So were in the bible is it said that a spirit does not have a material body or lacks form? That is a new revelation that is not in the bible.

*note that material does not mean physical.

Do you always argue this poorly? If you could even call it an arguemnt?

My citation of Merriam-Webster was specifically in response to the following comment by Vance:

Still waiting for support for the "incorporeal" means "immaterial" premise. I won't hold my breath.

Edited out snarky comment.

[Brennin]

So what we have here are secular definitions for secular words.

"having no material(adjective) BODY(noun)" is not the same as being "immaterial".

The fact is you can't say that a spirit is "immaterial" because you don't know the composition of a spirit.

The spirit has a form, and at times can be seen (either emits or reflects light), both attributes of "material".

So now that you got me with your dictionary definition, please supply a scriptural basis for the premise that a spirit is "immaterial" (a non scriptural word).

Aren't you the same guy who wrote in this very thread:

You use a special definition of person (a form of special pleading).

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I can see why you're a Mormon. My citation of Merriam-Webster was specifically in response to the following comment by Vance:

Still waiting for support for the "incorporeal" means "immaterial" premise. I won't hold my breath.

Well shoot. I guess I should leave the LDS church. What are 7 years old arguing in the play ground? Any way if you will notice that I did not make that argument and you did point out Vance did. Why then are you trying to force that argument to me?

Is this were I should say "It is clear to me now, why you are no longer LDS"?

Incorporeal and immaterial have a similar meaning. I never argued differntly. What I question (Mr. rude pants) is that were in the bible does "not having a body of flesh and bones" means incorporeal or immaterial. That was my specific question a few posts back that you ignored.

[Brennin]

Well shoot. I guess I should leave the LDS church. What are 7 years old arguing in the play ground? Any way if you will notice that I did not make that argument and you did point out Vance did. Why then are you trying to force that argument to me?

Is this were I should say "It is clear to me now, why you are no longer LDS"?

Incorporeal and immaterial have a similar meaning. I never argued differntly. What I question (Mr. rude pants) is that were in the bible does "not having a body of flesh and bones" means incorporeal or immaterial. That was my specific question a few posts back that you ignored.

Yeah, that rude. I apologize. I shouldn't let my contempt for Mormonism translate into rudeness toward Mormons.

[Vance]

Aren't you the same guy who wrote in this very thread:

You use a special definition of person (a form of special pleading).

Yup, that was me. (Did you notice that I didn't make a big deal about it?)

That still doesn't show that the lack of a material(adjective) BODY means "immaterial".

And it doesn't change that fact that you can't say that a spirit is "immaterial" because you don't know the composition of a spirit.

[Calm]

Its 1x1x1=1 not 1+1+1=1 which would be 1+1+1 does not equal one.

Somehow I really don't think this is what the Lord had in mind when he said "be fruitful and multiply"

*****add-on: using multiplication to describe this relationship is saying the opposite of what one really wants to say as it is saying "one set of one set of one" since modalism fits the closest (one thing taken three different times/ways is still one thing), not in any sense that somehow something that are three separate things are turned into one by multiplication.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Yeah, that rude. I apologize. I shouldn't let my contempt for Mormonism translate into rudeness toward Mormons.

Very good. Lets get back to the discussion.

[Ambrose]

What are you talking about? Who has mocked your position? What I don't understand is your postion. I am looking for a clear explination of it and it generally resorts to special definitions of the word nature and being. If you don't like a discussion that is fine, but don't call a discussion a mockery simply because we don't agree with yours or Coolroks beliefs.

Do you not see Vance's posts with images that are meant to make a mockery of positions? &c.

I think that this is the first time that you have said that you don't understand a position or that you are looking for a position to be explained. That is the start of a good discussion. Prior to this, you have been denouncing that which you now say you don't understand.

Unfortunately, I am unaware of using words like "nature" and "being" and "person" with special definitions, but I have been trying to immerse myself in the Scholastics for a year or so now. These precise meanings do not seem to be equivocal nor unequivocal but analogical. Perhaps your objection is not so much in the definitions, but in the theological process of analogy.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Do you not see Vance's posts with images that are meant to make a mockery of positions? &c.

I think that this is the first time that you have said that you don't understand a position or that you are looking for a position to be explained. That is the start of a good discussion. Prior to this, you have been denouncing that which you now say you don't understand.

Unfortunately, I am unaware of using words like "nature" and "being" and "person" with special definitions, but I have been trying to immerse myself in the Scholastics for a year or so now. These precise meanings do not seem to be equivocal nor unequivocal but analogical. Perhaps your objection is not so much in the definitions, but in the theological process of analogy.

As far as Vance, I can't really say that was making a mock. I would say making a mock is something like this "You believe in the Trinity? You are stupid to beleive such a dumb thing."

Anyway

I don't recall having lots of discussions with you. I am talking about past general experiances. In a disucssion such as one with nicean trinitarian views, I almost always explain that I do not understand the doctrine upfront and that is the main reason I talk about it. I do reject reject it as I find no biblical support for certain aspects of the Nicean trinitarian view.

Most of the time the converstation goes something like this.

Me>So God and Jesus and the HG are the same person?

You>No, they are not the same but they share the same susbstace or nature?

Me>So how does that type of unity equal a beleif in a monothesitic God? It sounds like there is 3 persons in the God head.

You>Well. There are 3 distinct persons but they are One God and they are share the same being or nature. You cannot think that when I say being I mean the same as a person.

Me>Ok now I am even more confused.

At some point almost all of the converstaions end with, "It is a great mystery that we as humans cannot understand it". So if that is they case why would God even go to the trouble of revealing something that we have no chance of understanding and only confuses poeple.

BTW I am all for you trying to help us all understand this doctrine. I have heard no anology that fits the idea of the Nicean Trinity. All of them seem to be for modelism which seems to be denounced but makes more sense to me than the other ideas in mainstream christianity.

And we shall see if you equivocate on your use of the term being or nature.

The best explination so far as come from ChristKnight. And in the end he told me that he does not trying to argue for the doctrine only that this was how he was taught about it.