Was Jesus The Son Of God Before The Earth Was Created?

[TheSkepticChristian]

The logic is contradictory only if 1) God is material 

 

but you say that God is three persons, how is 3 = 1 without collapsing it to modalism, arianism, or partialism?

If mathematical platonism is true, that would create a bigger problem for the Trinity because numbers are not matter. 

 

Material or not, how can 3 = 1?  and word became flesh, so God is material but God is not material at the same time, where is the logic?

 

 

 The reason we believe it's possible that a being can exist outside space and time is because Jesus told us so through Holy Scripture, Apostolic Tradition, and the Church that preserves both.

 

When you have movement, you have time, are you saying that God never moves? 

 

 

If you want a religion that fits into your understanding, then Christianity isn't what you are looking for. 

 

I don't have to understand everything to believe it, but it is hard for me to believe in logical contradictions. 

Edited May 26, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[JLHPROF]

I don't have to understand everything to believe it, but it is hard for me to believe in logical contradictions. 

 

This is what some don't seem to understand.

 

There is a huge difference between asking me to believe in a God who knows how to part seas and move mountains, or even one that can flood the entire earth and leave no trace of said flood and other things I don't understand.  There is a big difference between that and asking me to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster (not a belief but a mockery) or a God with the head of an elephant (as the Hindus believe).  I understand that people can believe differently, but I think we each have to draw our line of rationality.  To me a God without body, parts, passions, everywhere at once, outside of time etc is every bit as unlikely a being as Ganesha.

 

The only difference is I draw my line for God a bit closer to human than a traditional Christian would.  He still has the same attributes of love, grace, mercy, justice, etc.

Is that making God in our own image?  Some might think so, but since we believe it based on what God himself has said and done I would say not.

[coolrok7]

I understand my own beliefs without the video which I did watch.

[Spammer]

but you say that God is three persons, how is 3 = 1 without collapsing it to modalism, arianism, or partialism?

If mathematical platonism is true, that would create a bigger problem for the Trinity because numbers are not matter. 

 

 

I do not say 3=1.  Only those who seek to reason by analogy using math say God is 3=1.  I say God is One and is in three Persons.  That is the Trinitarian formula. Arianism teaches that the Son is a created being ('there was a time when the Son was not').  In our belief, a created being cannot be divine by nature.  Thus, to say the Son was created is to assert that the Son is not God by nature.  At most, he would be a god like us - a finite, created being with limitations who participates in and shares in the divine nature, not the being who is divine by nature (of which there can only be one - since the divine being is infinite).  

 

Trinitarians are not platonists.

 

Material or not, how can 3 = 1?  and word became flesh, so God is material but God is not material at the same time, where is the logic?

 

 

Again, I am not saying 3=1.  No mathematical analogy (or any analogy) can capture the reality.  We believe that God is simple and without parts.  He is infinite and indivisible. He is also three, although as I said we would say that God is in three persons, not that God is three persons.  Even using those concepts has limitations.  Those are all human terms and concepts and none of them apply to God in his essence or nature.  Human logic can't get us to where God is, since all categories and concepts of human thought are rooted in time and space.  As you say, using human logic, we can grasp the concepts of one and three, but logic doesn't let us put one and three together in the formula 3=1.  God transcends categorization and logic, so asking how 3=1 is logical is beside the point.  This is something we accept on faith since our finite and limited nature doesn't allow us to grasp it using concepts.  The basis for what makes it possible is our belief that God's nature is infinite (without any limitation).  We have no experience of a being with no limitations whatsoever.  Nevertheless, we believe such a being exists and that being is God.

 

 

 

When you have movement, you have time, are you saying that God never moves? 

 

 

God in His essence is unchanging and never moves.  It follows from the fact that God is uncreated and dwells outside time and space.  His energies, as they exist within space and time, do move.  When in time (whether in His energies or as the man, Jesus), God moves.   Outside of time (and there was never a 'time' when God was not outside of time), God never moves.  Those energies are not separate from God, however.  They are God Himself as He exists within the universe, penetrating matter, but not identified with it (we're not pantheists), and holding all things in existence from moment to moment.   See St. Gregory Palamas for an explication of what all this means. 

 

 

 

I don't have to understand everything to believe it, but it is hard for me to believe in logical contradictions. 

 

 

They are only logical contradictions if we insist on putting the uncreated and infinite God into a logical box of human invention.

Edited May 26, 2015 by Spammer

[danielwoods]

I understand that.

I'd rather believe that God's truth is rational and understandable.  We may not understand everything about God, but I personally believe Christ when he said life eternal is to come to know God and Christ.  I don't see how we can ever come to know and gain the promise of eternal life from a being as incomprehensible and different to mortal men as the Trinitarian God.

 

To me it is mind blowing that the God of all that exists, all the Universe, everything, is someone that I can have a relationship with. 

 

To limit him in my own little box of understanding is not what I consider a wise move. Or put it another way. Where does God say we will be able to understand his nature? 

 

I don't have to understand everything to believe it, but it is hard for me to believe in logical contradictions. 

 

You're "Logic" is based on limited data. With that limited data set, yes I agree it appears to be a contradiction. 

Edited May 26, 2015 by danielwoods

[ERayR]

I'd rather the truth, rational to me or not. 

 

Whose Truth?

[JLHPROF]

To limit him in my own little box of understanding is not what I consider a wise move. Or put it another way. Where does God say we will be able to understand his nature? 

 

And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

Edited May 26, 2015 by JLHPROF

[Spammer]

And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

 

In my tradition (Eastern Orthodox), we come to know the Father in the Son through the Holy Spirit, the Trinity one in essence and undivided.  We cannot know God in His essence through rational means or sense data. That means we cannot know God as He is unless He reveals Himself to us.  God first came to us in His Son.  'If you see me, you have seen the Father.'  But God desires to unite with us intimately and reveal Himself to us in His fulness.  This occurs in stages and the spiritual life mirrors those stages.  At first, we see through a glass darkly.  Later, depending on us, God reveals Himself to us directly.  This is called 'seeing' the uncreated Light.  This is a revelation of God from God to man.  'Seeing' God occurs only through uniting with Him.  Our spiritual praxis is an entire course of therapeutic treatment that facilitates this journey and outcome.  The path is prayer, fasting, repentance, and humility.  We are strengthened on this journey by receiving God Himself in the bread and wine of the Eucharist each Sunday, which is the means by which He joins us to his Mystical Body unites Himself with us ever more intimately over time.  There is no other way, in our view.  So...we do believe that we can know the only true God.  Just because the Father is bodiless doesn't mean we can't get to know Him.  Although His essence is incomprehensible to us, He reveals Himself to those who choose to walk the path of prayer and fasting.  The Holy Fathers of the Church and the Saints are those who walked this path before us and show us the way.  

Edited May 26, 2015 by Spammer

[danielwoods]

Whose Truth?

 

God's

[danielwoods]

And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

 

You know your earthly father, (I assume). You don't know everything about his nature though. 

 

The type of knowledge Jesus is talking about is relational knowledge not factual knowledge. 

 

Life eternal isn't knowing God's nature (whether triune or polytheistic), rather Life eternal is to have a relationship with him directly. 

[JLHPROF]

You know your earthly father, (I assume). You don't know everything about his nature though. 

 

The type of knowledge Jesus is talking about is relational knowledge not factual knowledge. 

 

Life eternal isn't knowing God's nature (whether triune or polytheistic), rather Life eternal is to have a relationship with him directly. 

 

1. I know enough to know that he has a physical body, dwells in time, and is representative of my father in Heaven to me on earth.

 

2. That is your belief, not necessarily scriptural fact.

 

3. See number 2.

[mfbukowski]

You're still thinking as if the Trinity is part of or dwells within our universe or any universe. No analogy will suffice, since any attempt to analogize can only be made through an analogy with humans or some other measurable object.  This places God in the universe with us.  Analogies have their place, but their limitations must be understood; at best, they are only road signs that point in the direction of the reality.  Try to think beyond and outside space and time. 'Before' space, time, or matter existed, God, the One who is beyond all being, 'is'. That's the first, necessary step to understanding what we believe and why.

 

If we can speak of it, it clearly exists here in space and time in some sense.

 

Unicorns exist in that sense as does the concept of "freedom".

 

Speaking of a "reality" outside space and time literally makes no sense.  One has to be IN space and time for the notion of "outside" space and time to make sense.   Heck "outside" IS ITSELF a metaphor IN space.  We cannot even conceive of such a thing.

 

So what is a "reality" we cannot even conceive of?

 

I kind of like thinking that tables and chairs are real and that the ultimate reality is NOT nonsense.  It helps me get around town without crashing into things.

 

No inside without an outside.   I love you man, but words don't do it.

 

My model of God has to make sense, or I might just as well just point to the sky and say nothing. 

 

I think that is the only consistent course for mystics.  I consider myself a mystic, so I do not talk about the nature of God, I just talk about thought models FOR the nature of God, and that is why Mormonism is the closest I think we can get that actually makes sense.

[mfbukowski]

I do not say 3=1.  Only those who seek to reason by analogy using math say God is 3=1.  I say God is One and is in three Persons.  That is the Trinitarian formula. Arianism teaches that the Son is a created being ('there was a time when the Son was not').  In our belief, a created being cannot be divine by nature.  Thus, to say the Son was created is to assert that the Son is not God by nature.  At most, he would be a god like us - a finite, created being with limitations who participates in and shares in the divine nature, not the being who is divine by nature (of which there can only be one - since the divine being is infinite).  

 

Trinitarians are not platonists.

 

 

Again, I am not saying 3=1.  No mathematical analogy (or any analogy) can capture the reality.  We believe that God is simple and without parts.  He is infinite and indivisible. He is also three, although as I said we would say that God is in three persons, not that God is three persons.  Even using those concepts has limitations.  Those are all human terms and concepts and none of them apply to God in his essence or nature.  Human logic can't get us to where God is, since all categories and concepts of human thought are rooted in time and space.  As you say, using human logic, we can grasp the concepts of one and three, but logic doesn't let us put one and three together in the formula 3=1.  God transcends categorization and logic, so asking how 3=1 is logical is beside the point.  This is something we accept on faith since our finite and limited nature doesn't allow us to grasp it using concepts.  The basis for what makes it possible is our belief that God's nature is infinite (without any limitation).  We have no experience of a being with no limitations whatsoever.  Nevertheless, we believe such a being exists and that being is God.

 

 

 

God in His essence is unchanging and never moves.  It follows from the fact that God is uncreated and dwells outside time and space.  His energies, as they exist within space and time, do move.  When in time (whether in His energies or as the man, Jesus), God moves.   Outside of time (and there was never a 'time' when God was not outside of time), God never moves.  Those energies are not separate from God, however.  They are God Himself as He exists within the universe, penetrating matter, but not identified with it (we're not pantheists), and holding all things in existence from moment to moment.   See St. Gregory Palamas for an explication of what all this means. 

 

 

 

They are only logical contradictions if we insist on putting the uncreated and infinite God into a logical box of human invention.

Which is the only place WE CAN place him.

 

The only solution is to stop speaking and point a lot.

 

Preach the gospel at all times.  Though necessary, words don't work.   That's what Francis, a Catholic, should have said. 

 

So how can Protest-ants protest Catholicism while using the same faulty terminology??   go figure.

[mfbukowski]

Trinitarians are not platonists.

 

You don't have to be Mormon to see the problems with this.  You just have to know the history of philosophy.

 

How about arguing with the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy?

 

You can construct any belief you like, but scholars would not agree with any of this unless they came out of the local Bible college on the corner, or a Catholic seminary, both of which clearly have apologetic motives.

 

Another influence may have been the Neoplatonist Plotinus' (204–70 CE) triad of the One, Intellect, and Soul, in which the latter two mysteriously emanate from the One, and “are the One and not the One; they are the one because they are from it; they are not the One, because it endowed them with what they have while remaining by itself” (Plotinus Enneads, 85). Plotinus even describes them as three hypostases, and describes their sameness using homoousios (Freeman 2003, 189). Augustine tells us that he and other Christian intellectuals of his day believed that the Neoplatonists had some awareness of the persons of the Trinity (Confessions VIII.3; City X.23).

Many thinkers influential in the development of trinitarian doctrines were steeped in the thought not only of Middle Platonism and Neoplatonism, but also the Stoics, Aristotle, and other currents in Greek philosophy (Hanson 1988, 856–869). Whether one sees this background as a providentially supplied and useful tool, or as an unavoidably distorting influence, those developing the doctrine saw themselves as trying to build a systematic Christian theology on the Bible while remaining faithful to earlier post-biblical tradition. Many also had the aim of showing Christianity to be consistent with the best of Greek philosophy. But even if the doctrine had a non-Christian origin, it would would not follow that it is false or unjustified; it could be, that through Philo (or whomever), God revealed the doctrine to the Christian church. Still, it is contested issue whether or not the doctrine can be deduced or otherwise inferred from the Christian Bible, so we must turn to it.

2. The Christian Bible 2.1 The Old Testament

No trinitarian doctrine is explicitly taught in the Old Testament. Sophisticated trinitarians grant this, holding that the doctrine was revealed by God only later, in New Testament times (c.50–c.100) and/or in the Patristic era (c. 100–800). They usually also add, though, that with hindsight, we can see that a number of texts either portray or forshadow the co-working of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

For example, in Genesis 18, Yahweh appears to Abraham as three men, and the text has often been read as though the men spoke as one, with one voice. What is this, they urge, if not an appearance of, or even a triple temporary incarnation of the three persons within God's nature? (Other interpretations identify Yahweh with one of the men, the one who stays behind while the others travel to Sodom in Genesis 19.)

In numerous other passages, many Christian readers hold, the preincarnate Son of God is mentioned, or even appears in bodily form to do the bidding of his Father, and is (so they believe) sometimes called the “angel of the Lord”. Some have even identified the preincarnate Christ as Michael, protecting angel over Israel mentioned in the books of Daniel, Jude, and Revelation.

And in several passages, Yahweh refers to himself, or is referred to using plural terms. Non-trinitarians usually read this as a plural of majesty, a form of speech which occurs in many languages, or a conversation between God and angels, while trinitarians often read this as a conversation between the persons of the Trinity.

In sum, Christians read the Old Testament through the lens of the New. For example, the former speaks of God as working by his “word”, “wisdom”, or “spirit”. Some New Testament passages call Jesus Christ the word and wisdom of God, and in the Gospel of John, Jesus talks about the sending of another comforter or helper, the “Holy Spirit”. Thus, some Christians claim the door was open to positing two divine intelligent agents in addition to “the Father”, by, through, or in whom the Father acts, one of whom was incarnated in the man Jesus. In opposition, other Christian readers have taken these passages to involve anthropomorphization of divine attributes, urging that Greek speculations unfortunately encouraged the aforementioned hypostasizations.

2.2 The New Testament

The New Testament contains no explicit trinitarian doctrine. However, many Christian theologians, apologists, and philosophers hold that the doctrine can be inferred from what the New Testament does teach about God. But how may it be inferred? Is the inference deductive, or is it an inference to the best explanation? And is it based on what is implicitly taught there, or on what is merely assumed there? Many Christian theologians and apologists seem to hold it is a deductive inference.

In contrast, other Christians admit that their preferred doctrine of the Trinity not only (1) can't be inferred from the Bible alone, but also (2) that there's inadequate or no evidence for it there, and even (3) that what is taught in the Bible is incompatible with the doctrine. These Christians believe the doctrine solely on the authority of later doctrinal pronouncements of the True Christian Church (typically one of: the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox tradition, or the mainstream of the Christian tradition, broadly understood). Some Catholic apologists have argued that this doctrine shows the necessity of the teaching authority of the Church, this doctrine being constitutive of Christianity but underivable from the Bible apart from the Church's guidance in interpreting it. This stance is not popular among Christians who are neither Catholic nor Eastern Orthodox. (2) would be the main sticking point, although some groups deny all three.

Many Christian apologists argue that the doctrine of the Trinity is “biblical” (i.e. either it is implicitly taught there, or it is the best explanation of what is taught there) using three sorts of arguments. They begin by claiming that the Father of Jesus Christ is the one true God taught in the Old Testament. They then argue that given what the Bible teaches about Christ and the Holy Spirit, they must be “fully divine” as well. Thus, we must, as it were, “move them within” the nature of the one God. Therefore, there are three fully divine persons “in God”. While this may be paradoxical, it is argued that this is what God has revealed to humankind through the Bible

 

 

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/trinity/trinity-history.html

[mfbukowski]

God's

Says you.

 

that's fine- but know that it is your interpretation.  Others may differ, and there is no way to prove you are "right".

[Spammer]

If we can speak of it, it clearly exists here in space and time in some sense.

 

Unicorns exist in that sense as does the concept of "freedom".

 

Speaking of a "reality" outside space and time literally makes no sense.  One has to be IN space and time for the notion of "outside" space and time to make sense.   Heck "outside" IS ITSELF a metaphor IN space.  We cannot even conceive of such a thing.

 

So what is a "reality" we cannot even conceive of?

 

I kind of like thinking that tables and chairs are real and that the ultimate reality is NOT nonsense.  It helps me get around town without crashing into things.

 

No inside without an outside.   

 

I agree with all of this.  Me and my fellow Trinitarians attempt to describe an inconceivable reality using words from the only reality we experience.  Nevertheless, we believe this other reality exists and we strive to understand it, since we believe that is where God "dwells".  We're forced to use time- and space-bound concepts like "outside space and time" to describe that which is "beyond".  Even though we recognize the limitation, we still believe that that "beyond" exists.  Over the centuries, many theologians and philosophers have tried to capture the essence of God using words and concepts.  As you point out, and as I've tried to explain, all of these attempts must necessarily fail.  How, then, do we know about the unknowable?  We believe the Unknowable desires to be known, made Himself known in Christ, and makes Himself known through the Holy Spirit to those who follow the Way of prayer, humility, and repentance.  We Orthodox believe there are men and women to whom God grants a 'vision' of His true nature in this life through intimate union with them, permeating them, revealing Himself to them in an intimate way beyond thought that strips away all concepts, and makes them while in union with Him to be all Light (theosis).  We believe what we believe because of Revelation, even though those who have had this experience must inevitably use language and concepts to describe that experience and its content.  Put another way, those who have a direct experience of the ineffable and transcendent Divine Presence and "see" God with their spiritual eyes, and who then try to describe that experience, only end up putting God within a human-made linguistic and conceptual box.  That's why so many of the Fathers and Saints of the Church say that after being gifted with this overwhelming experience beyond thought or concept, the only appropriate response is silence.

Edited May 27, 2015 by Spammer

[Spammer]

Which is the only place WE CAN place him.

 

The only solution is to stop speaking and point a lot.

 

Preach the gospel at all times.  Though necessary, words don't work.   That's what Francis, a Catholic, should have said. 

 

So how can Protest-ants protest Catholicism while using the same faulty terminology??   go figure.

 

Exactly.  Any attempt to describe God and the "place" where He "dwells" only leads to placing Him in a conceptual box of our own devising.  "The only solution is to stop speaking and point a lot".  Just be silent, lead people to the path of prayer, repentance, and humility, and point the way.  Yes.

[TheSkepticChristian]

I do not say 3=1.  Only those who seek to reason by analogy using math say God is 3=1.  I say God is One and is in three Persons.  That is the Trinitarian formula. 

 

That is the same thing, you believe that three persons is God 3 = 1. 

 

 

Again, I am not saying 3=1.  No mathematical analogy (or any analogy) can capture the reality.  We believe that God is simple and without parts.  He is infinite and indivisible. He is also three.

 

That is the contradiction, you believe God is without parts but at the same time he is three. 

 

God in His essence is unchanging and never moves.  It follows from the fact that God is uncreated and dwells outside time and space.  His energies, as they exist within space and time, do move.  When in time (whether in His energies or as the man, Jesus), God moves.   Outside of time (and there was never a 'time' when God was not outside of time), God never moves.  Those energies are not separate from God, however.

 

That is the contradiction, you believe God moves but at the same time he doesn't move. You are talking about the same being, so your statement is a contradiction. 

 

 

They are only logical contradictions if we insist on putting the uncreated and infinite God into a logical box

 

Thanks for admitting that the Trinity contradicts known logic. 

 

 

You're "Logic" is based on limited data. With that limited data set, yes I agree it appears to be a contradiction. 

 

It is not limited data, you clearly believe that three persons is God, and that the body of Jesus was created.

 

You believe the three persons of the trinity have the "same substance" but what about the body of Jesus?

[Spammer]

You don't have to be Mormon to see the problems with this.  You just have to know the history of philosophy.

 

How about arguing with the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy?

 

You can construct any belief you like, but scholars would not agree with any of this unless they came out of the local Bible college on the corner, or a Catholic seminary, both of which clearly have apologetic motives.

 

 

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/trinity/trinity-history.html

 

One man's causal influence is another man's shared terminology.  Those who see a causal link between Neoplatonism and Trinitarian thought beyond the use of shared terms defined differently misunderstand one or both systems.  Terms such as "the One", "the Many", "hypostasis", "homousious", and "three" may be shared but as applied to either context have different meanings.  True, Neoplatonism uses terms that imply that God is both One and Three, posits three hypostases and a single, shared essence within the divine being, but that's where the similarity with traditional Christianity ends.  Both developed within the same cultural and intellectual milieu and used the same terminology, but in terms of the content and meaning of the shared terminology, the two systems are alien to each other and the most notable Fathers of the Church (esp. Origen and Evagrius) who made the error of attempting to incorporating Neoplatonist concepts into their writings (as distinct from using similar terminology) were condemned and those parts of their writings were anathemetized.

 

Neoplatonism is a pantheistic system and describes a cosmos created ex deo (not ex nihilo, as in traditional Christianity) that comes into being through a series of emanations derived from the primordial source of all being, the One who is beyond being.   The three hypostases in Neoplatonism (the One, Intellect, and Soul) comprise the cosmos and together are the cosmos, including matter and the phenomenological world. This is obviously very alien to what Trinitarians believe.  For us, the three hypostases are Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, one God and that God is distinct from matter and made matter ex nihilo.  For Neoplatonists, everything that exists is an emanation of God and is God.  You, me, the universe and everything material derive from the One through a series of emanations of the divine substance and share in that substance.  The One emanates the Intellect (Nous), which emanates the Soul, which is comprised of the the World Soul and the phenomenological world of matter.  The phenomenological world of matter, which includes humans, is the furthest removed from God but since they emanated from God, humans are material beings that contain a divine spark and whose intelligences derive from from the second hypostasis (Intellect); in other words, humans are gods in embryo. We are gods by nature, since we are of the same 'species' as God.  It follows from the principle of emanation that souls or spirits are also pre-existent.  it's interesting that Mormons, Neoplatonists, and gnostics (whose systems were all Neoplatonist) all believe in the co-eternality of matter, preexistent spirits, and that humans are gods in embryo.  None of this is part of the traditional cosmological system of Trinitarian Christianity.  In fact, as I said, Greek Church Fathers who believed in these things (Origen, Evagrius, Valentinus) were all condemned by the Church.  

 

Greek Christian philosophers of the Patristic era indisputably used Neoplatonist terms to describe and persuade (the Neoplatonist framework was the dominant mode for all philosophical discourse, after all), so this use is not a surprise, but the Church filled those terms with Christian content in its missionary efforts and reorganized them into a framework based on Christian teaching and concepts that were already in use in the century before Plotinus was born, namely ex nihilo creation and the oneness, immateriality, and timelessness of the divine being (Ireneaus, student of Polycarp, who was a student of the Apostle John, wrote about all of these 25 years before Plotinus' birth and 80 years before Plotinus first compiled and shared his Enneads).  Christianity shares with Neoplatonism a belief in the tri-hypostatic nature of God and the oneness and timelessness of the divine being (and also shares this belief in God's oneness and timelessness with the ancient Hebrews who built the first temple in Jerusalem and from whom Plato got his ideas about the nature of the divine, if Philo of Alexandria and Margaret Barker are to be believed), but that's where the similarity ends.   That said, insofar as Plotinus believed that the divine being is One, timeless, and undivided, then he got some things right.  Mormons would agree with Plotinus that matter is co-eternal, that spirits are preexistent, that our intelligences derive from an uncreated 'pool' or primordial source of Intelligence (Plotinus' second hypostasis, the Nous), and that humans have a divine spark, correct?  Clearly, being a pagan Greek philosopher doesn't by definition necessarily make someone wrong in everything they teach.  Since we humans are reason-endowed (a gift from God, granted to draw us to Himself), sometimes even pagans are able to approach the truth through reason alone.  Similarly, Christian use of Greek philosophical terms doesn't necessarily mean that the Christian who uses the term is unduly influenced by pagans.  After all, John the Beloved used logos, a Greek philosophical term, to refer to the preincarnate Christ in his Gospel.  It makes sense that John would use terminology familiar to Greek pagans in his effort to evangelize those Greek pagans.  This is precisely what the Church did when trying to formulate the language used in the Trinitarian dogma.

Edited May 27, 2015 by Spammer

[Spammer]

TheSkepticChristian, on 27 May 2015 - 08:18 AM, said:

That is the same thing, you believe that three persons is God 3 = 1. 

 

No.  I believe that God is in three persons and that those three persons have a single, uncreated nature or essence.

 

 

 

That is the contradiction, you believe God is without parts but at the same time he is three. 

 

Nope.  God is not in three parts; He is in three persons.

 

 

 

That is the contradiction, you believe God moves but at the same time he doesn't move. You are talking about the same being, so your statement is a contradiction. 

 

It's only a contradiction if you continue to think in terms of God being made of matter, like us.

 

 

Thanks for admitting that the Trinity contradicts known logic. 

 

What I said is that the Trinity contradicts human logic.  Since known logic is human logic, then yes, it appears to contradict, but that's only because human logic is a creation of finite beings who use it to try to grasp the Infinite. This attempt will always fail.  

 

 

 

 

 

It is not limited data, you clearly believe that three persons is God, and that the body of Jesus was created.

 

You believe the three persons of the trinity have the "same substance" but what about the body of Jesus?

 

 

The Divine Logos and Second Person of the Trinity shares the same "substance" with the Father and the Holy Spirit.  The divinity in Jesus is uncreated; his body was created.  

Edited May 27, 2015 by Spammer

[TheSkepticChristian]

 

That is the contradiction, you believe God is without parts but at the same time he is three. 

 

Nope.  God is not in three parts; He is in three persons.  

 

I didn't say that, you said that, "We believe that God is simple and without parts"

Please stop adding words to my mouth. 

 

 

No.  I believe that God is in three persons and that those three persons have a single, uncreated nature or essence.

 

What about Jesus?

 

 

It's only a contradiction if you continue to think in terms of God being made of matter, like us.

 

What about Jesus? Your answer is not relevant to what I am saying. You believe that three persons (plural) is God (singular), that is a logical contradiction. 

 

 

The Divine Logos and Second Person of the Trinity shares the same "substance" with the Father and the Holy Spirit.  The divinity in Jesus is uncreated; his body was created.  

 

but the body of Jesus is part of God, do you believe the resurrected body of Jesus is divine?

 

 

What I said is that the Trinity contradicts human logic.  Since known logic is human logic, then yes, it appears to contradict, but that's only because human logic is a creation of finite beings who use it to try to grasp the Infinite. This attempt will always fail.  

 

Thanks for admitting that. You are human, you admitted that the Trinity contradicts known logic, so it means that your description of the Trinity is pointless because it is a logical contradiction. How can you say the Trinity is not a logical contradictions when you just admitted that the Trinity contradicts known logic? 

 

The Bible never mentions "God is in three persons" so why do you say that God is in three persons? You just said that the Trinity contradicts known logic, so how can you make conclusions? 

Edited May 27, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[Spammer]

TheSkepticChristian, on 27 May 2015 - 09:55 AM, said:

I didn't say that, you said that, "We believe that God is simple and without parts"

Please stop adding words to my mouth.

I was just clarifying my belief based on how I understood your comment.

What about Jesus?

What about Jesus? Your answer is not relevant to what I am saying. You believe that three persons (plural) is God (singular), that is a logical contradiction.

It's only a contradiction if you insist on trying to force the God I believe in into the box you call 'logic' using the finite quantities of the numeric values of one and three. As I've said, the Infinite cannot be adequately described or understood using finite, human logic. In our belief, God can't be understood with human language and concepts; God can only experienced, out of which comes our attempts to describe that experience of Infinity using finite concepts.

but the body of Jesus is part of God, do you believe the resurrected body of Jesus is divine?

We believe that the Son of God is one person in two natures, human and divine, fully God and fully man, not half god and half man, like some kind of hybrid. The one, undivided divine nature or essence united with created human nature; the uncreated 'fused' with the created and became one, without mingling and without separation.

Thanks for admitting that. You are human, you admitted that the Trinity contradicts known logic, so it means that your description of the Trinity is pointless because it is a logical contradiction. How can you say the Trinity is not a logical contradictions when you just admitted that the Trinity contradicts known logic?

The Trinity surpasses human logic, as well as any and all human concepts and categories, so it seems contradictory. That's the better way to put it. Every description of the Trinity is pointless since every description relies on finite concepts that can never fully capture the Infinite. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't at least make the attempt. We know through Revelation that God is Trinity and uniting with Him (theosis) allows us to know Him, a gift He gives to those who follow the prescribed path.

The Bible never mentions "God is in three persons" so why do you say that God is in three persons? You just said that the Trinity contradicts known logic, so how can you make conclusions?

The Bible never mentions a lot of things, including many Mormon concepts and teachings. So what? I'm no Bible-alone Christian. You have prophets; I have the Ecumenical Councils and the Apostolic Tradition, including the councils that selected the books that would be included in your New Testament. We selected those books and put them together with the Old Testament to make the Bible 1100 years before there were any Protestants and 1400 years before there were any Mormons. The Bible is our book and it only exists because we put it together and preserved it over the centuries. It's important to keep that in mind when you say things like "The Bible never mentions..." to an Orthodox Christian or a Catholic. Yes, we know. We put the Bible together. We know what's in there. Edited May 27, 2015 by Spammer

[danielwoods]

1. I know enough to know that he has a physical body, dwells in time, and is representative of my father in Heaven to me on earth.

 

2. That is your belief, not necessarily scriptural fact.

 

3. See number 2.

 

It's actually a huge mistake to look at that verse (eternal life is to know him), and interpreting it as "knowledge" means factual knowledge about God.

 

We wouldn't say that about the statement that says, when "Adam knew his wife and had a son…" would we?  

Edited May 27, 2015 by danielwoods

[danielwoods]

It is not limited data, you clearly believe that three persons is God, and that the body of Jesus was created.

 

You believe the three persons of the trinity have the "same substance" but what about the body of Jesus?

 

You don't believe that we are operating on a limited data set here on Earth? 

 

You don't agree with Paul, that we see through a glass darkly? 

 

You don't agree with the statement that "his ways are higher than ours"?

 

That he uses the foolish things of the world to confound the wise? 

 

Here's one way to look at the nature of God.

 

We are human and primarily physical, and we have a spirit.

 

God is Spirit, and in the person of Christ, he also has a body. 

 

We are in one moment at a time. He is in all moments at the same time. 

[danielwoods]

Says you.

 

that's fine- but know that it is your interpretation.  Others may differ, and there is no way to prove you are "right".

 

Eray asked me whose truth do I seek. I said God's. 

 

It is an attitude that I have when I approach things I don't understand.