D. Charles Pyle, 32 Posted December 3, 2004 Posted December 3, 2004 The triple point is more than the separate states of ice, water and vapor sitting around together in the same chamber. They are physically bound together as one, and one of the states cannot exist without the others. It demonstrates that it is possible for one substance to exist in three separate and distinct states, independent of time, while remaining undivided. I offered this illustration because you had expressed confusion about how something could possibly exist as one undivided substance, but not solitary... The Triple Point of water exists only when conditions make it possible for three of the six or seven states of matter (those three being solid, liquid, gas) can exist in the same location at the same time. This condition allows ice skaters to do what they do on the ice. The external pressure of the skate and the motion forward causes the solid ice to liquify at the point where the skate contacts the ice. At that same time, a portion of the liquid forms into water vapor (gas), the state being lost or broken as the skate leaves the area where this occurred.While interesting, I always find that this analogy fails traditional trinitarians because the Triple Point cannot exist without external forces applied. Thus, if the analogy is to fit the traditional view, we must either maintain that God is God and exists in three persons because external forces are acting upon God, or we must abandon the analogy. It just doesn't fit what traditional trinitarians are trying to tell us.
John Russell Posted December 3, 2004 Posted December 3, 2004 While interesting, I always find that this analogy fails traditional trinitarians because the Triple Point cannot exist without external forces applied. Thus, if the analogy is to fit the traditional view, we must either maintain that God is God and exists in three persons because external forces are acting upon God, or we must abandon the analogy. It just doesn't fit what traditional trinitarians are trying to tell us. biggrin.gifI agree that the analogy fails to clarify the mystery of the Trinity. It works, I suppose, as long as one considers the three states to be "one substance". However, from a molecular standpoint, they are far from one substance, with a number of individual molecules in various energy states. Each molecule is separate and distinct from the others, yet bound by the commonality of transitional energetics to function as they do. Hey, wait a minute...... this sounds like the LDS version!
D. Charles Pyle, 32 Posted December 3, 2004 Posted December 3, 2004 ...To be called the Son of God is to be called God (John 5:18)... Exactly! Now, based upon this argument what say you about Revelation 21:7 and Romans 8:14, 19, where the Greek of the passages clearly uses the same term for son (huios) as that used for Jesus?In addition, on the subject of the unity of God, what does one do with John 17:11, 20-23, which address what kind of unity the Father and Son have to draw a comparison to the future unity of the saints with themselves and with God? If we are to be one just as the Father and Son are one, we can gather one of two things. Either the Father and Son are metaphysically one and the saints shall all be metaphysically one with themselves and with God, or God cannot be metaphysically one in substance as traditional trinitarians say.
D. Charles Pyle, 32 Posted December 3, 2004 Posted December 3, 2004 As I stated above, this isn't The Answer to the mystery of the trinity. It's illustrative of a concept and helps to answer one of the most common objections to the trinity. It is possible for something to be one and three at the same time. Yes it is possible for something to be one and three at the same time, but only if external force is applied. This is why the analogy fails if you try to apply it to God. The same thing occurs when trying to use the 'egg theory' because 1) it is a modalistic way to address the Trinity and 2) there are more than three parts to an egg. The egg analogy fails both because it is contrary to the reality of the structure of the egg and it elicits a modalistic worldview. The Triple Point analogy fails because in order for it to be analogous to the Trinity external force must be applied to God, and that is contrary to the traditional view of the Trinity. The Triple Point exists for more than just water. It appears to be somewhat universal, and if God is indeed reflected in nature, external force must be applied to God or the analogy fails as badly as the egg analogy.John 17:11, 20-23 tells us exactly how the Father and Son are one. There is no mystery about it if that scripture is taken at face value.
D. Charles Pyle, 32 Posted December 3, 2004 Posted December 3, 2004 I agree that the analogy fails to clarify the mystery of the Trinity. It works, I suppose, as long as one considers the three states to be "one substance". However, from a molecular standpoint, they are far from one substance, with a number of individual molecules in various energy states. Each molecule is separate and distinct from the others, yet bound by the commonality of transitional energetics to function as they do. Hey, wait a minute...... this sounds like the LDS version! And, in this, I agree with all that you have said. Thus, if God is reflected in nature as the Bible teaches, this interpretation and application of the Triple Point can and does apply to God, contrary to the traditional trinitarian stance. Further, John 17:11, 20-23 are quite clear as to the kind of unity that Father and Son share, and state that we also shall be united to God in the manner that Jesus is united with God. It's cool when the critics make our points for us, isn't it?
D. Charles Pyle, 32 Posted December 3, 2004 Posted December 3, 2004 It is contradictory to believe that God is eternal yet a man that attained Godhood. Actually, this not the case not when you consider the actual meanings and usage of the Hebrew and Greek terms for "eternal," only when you apply postbiblical, western theology and meaning to the terms.
D. Charles Pyle, 32 Posted December 3, 2004 Posted December 3, 2004 Would you agree that there is a God in heaven who is infinite and eternal, from everlasting to everlasting the same unchangeable God....Do you believe that the notion of infinity can mean unlimited, without bounds? In answer to the first question, yes. Yet, this does not conflict with my premise above. See the next response.In answer to the second, no. The term infinity did not mean in ancient times what it came to mean in the fourth century to today. The Hebrews did not have precise terms for time or eternity. The Greeks were a bit better but their usage of the terms shows close affinity with the Hebrew usages. The Latin infinitum originally and simply indicated what was above a man's ability to count. It was a relative term that was not specific as to timelines. It only later, centuries after the Bible was written, became so. You cannot force fourth century definitions onto first century texts. It doesn't work except in the minds of those who wish to force later theology onto early texts.
D. Charles Pyle, 32 Posted December 3, 2004 Posted December 3, 2004 John 17:11,20-23 only tells us part of who God is ...Trinitarians would agree in this unity but the doctrine of the Trinity reveals more about who God is.... The passages state quite clearly how it is that Father and Son are one and state that the saints will be one in the same manner as the Father and Son are one. The Greek comparative kath
D. Charles Pyle, 32 Posted December 3, 2004 Posted December 3, 2004 ...Again, I don't know what God's substance is. Its properties are such that it maintains its equilibrium in three states without external forces. That's part of the mystery. I am not claiming that God is water or any other substance we can examine in a laboratory.I'm glad we are in agreement that it is possible for something to be one and three at the same time, even if you feel compelled to limit that concept to the properties of those substances of which human beings have knowledge. I think you missed my clarifying post to a previous post to John Russell's post showing that the Triple Point is not a metaphysical state and that the three states are not literally quantum-intertwined. We certainly do not know all about God. That much is certain. However, John 17:11, 20-23 are very clear as to what the unity of God is, and is clear that we will somday share that same unity with one another and with God. Thus, the unity is not a metaphysical one as traditional trinitarians insist it must be. Otherwise, it is a metaphysical unity that will be shared with many, and that is contrary to the traditional trinitarian view. For them, nothing can literally be brought intop essential unity with God.And yet, there is the Mystery of the Hypostatic Union, isn't there? Thus, flesh and bone are joined to a member of the Trinity who is one substance with all the others, if the traditional trinitarians be correct. Now, take that to its logical conclusion and you have all three persons attached to the same body through the one substance. Thus, God is embodied.And yet, if this union be not literal, the Son at least is not of the same substance as Father and Holy Spirit, if traditional trinitarianism be correct in what it maintains of the simplicity of the Father. The Son is attached to a physical body which is bounded by space and can only be in one place at one time. Thus, if there is a literal union of subtance between Father, Son and Holy Spirit, all three must be attached to the physical body of Jesus via the hypostatic union. If so, the Holy Spirit cannot be a spirit at all because it is attached to a body via both the hypostatic union and unity of substance! Thoughts?
johnny Posted December 3, 2004 Posted December 3, 2004 Tanyan writes,Johnny I was referring to this last post by you and those of FiatLux which critics of any Christian denomination would apply in the eyes of atheists/humanists.But alas I see all is alive and well this day in the world of LDS critics. Hi Tanyan,I am not clear what your point is ... could you re-word your point ... thanks.Why is it that Stephen's vision is different than Daniel's, Ezekiel's, or John's vision of the same scene?
Tanyan Posted December 3, 2004 Posted December 3, 2004 Just a shout out to my good friend David, WHAAAATS Up !, as they would say. Thanks for comming by to add your expertice using the Biblical Sciences and Original Language's, Structures [Aramaic, Hebrew, Koine A Greek] which Johnny and FiatLux seem to be ignorant Of [That includes me also]. Why is it our critics "NEVER, EVER" use the cultural meanings of the Biblical world as they were used by them. Causes problems dosen't it David, They see, but they see not!.
Tanyan Posted December 3, 2004 Posted December 3, 2004 Johnny, Please deal with the original languages/structures that the Bible was written in that David is presenting to you, not the catholic statement, just what the text says in its original Language structure. Thank you.Is Jesus GOD ?Does he have a Resurrected Bodily Corporeal Existence ?Is he part of the Trinity as you see and view it ?Does GOD in any way have a bodily Corporeal existense Have a Bodily Corporeal Existence ?If GOD the SON is the EXACT IMAGE of THE FATHER, Then why wouldn't THE FATHER have a corporal existence also ?, if not then Jesus Christ to be exactly like his Father would need to return to be a "Spirit". [Which cannot or ever will happen].
Tanyan Posted December 3, 2004 Posted December 3, 2004 Gotta run, catch up on this later, Grace and peace to EVERYONE !.
johnny Posted December 3, 2004 Posted December 3, 2004 Tanyan writes,Johnny, Please deal with the original languages/structures that the Bible was written in that David is presenting to you, not the catholic statement, just what the text says in its original Language structure. Thank you.Is Jesus GOD ?Does he have a Resurrected Bodily Corporeal Existence ?Is he part of the Trinity as you see and view it ?Does GOD in any way have a bodily Corporeal existense Have a Bodily Corporeal Existence ?If GOD the SON is the EXACT IMAGE of THE FATHER, Then why wouldn't THE FATHER have a corporal existence also ?, if not then Jesus Christ to be exactly like his Father would need to return to be a "Spirit". [Which cannot or ever will happen]. Tanyan,Could you do me a favor and translate the following into the original languages/structures so that David can understand me Thanks,johnny- Jesus is the only Son of the Father and he is God himself- Jesus has a resurrected glorfied body- the Son of God is part of the trinity- The Son is in the express image of the Father- God is neither man nor woman. God is pure spirit
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.