[TUT317]

It's called a mystery. No one has ever been able to adequately understand or explain it. Some have said the Trinity is like an apple -- the core, the flesh, and the skin -- three separate things with diferent purposes but all identifiable as "apple." Others have said the Trinity is like a woman who can have three functions as a daughter, a wife, and a mother, but still be only one person.

I don't think the Trinity is to be understood as three parts of one thing e.g.. and apple or egg. I suggested earlier it was not really to be understood as 1+1+1=

Apparently theologians do use a principle know as,'Identity of Indiscernibles' when explaining the Trinity.This principle was but forward by Leibnitz, but was not intended as an explanation for the Trinity.

The following might be a good starting point.

The Identity of Indiscernibles states that no two objects can have the same description. If two objects are indistinguishable because they have all their properties in common they are really the one object.

In other words if x is the Son and y is the Father, then Oneness is true; provided X is identical to y. If something is true of the Son and not true of the Father then the Son is not identical to the Father. Oneness becomes false.

I would go along with x and y being identical. Therefore, I think Oneness is true.


Perhaps a good starting point?

Tut

[Wondergirl]

I don't think the Trinity is to be understood as three parts of one thing e.g.. and apple or egg. I suggested earlier it was not really to be understood as 1+1+1=

I agree, and I do not believe it can be understood at all in this life. That's why I said "some" and "others" put the Trinity in human terms to help with human understanding and give an appreciation of the complexity of "trinity-ness."

Apparently theologians do use a principle know as the 'Identity of Indiscernibles' when explaining the Trinity.This principle was but forward by Leibnitz, but was not intended as an explanation for the Trinity.

Theology and philosophy don't mix well. No, the Identity of Indiscernibles is not a good starting point. Its Constitution Model is the only solution that seems to fits simply because of the notion of "relative sameness": It is possible that there are x, y, z, F, G, and H such that x is an F, y is an F, z is an F, x is a G, y is a G, z is a G, x is an H, y is an H, and z is an H, yet x is the same F as y, but x is not the same G as y, and so on. Since God is not material, this relative-sameness solution can only be an analogy.

[I Newton]

Classy T said
>I put the wrong chapter and verse down... my bad it was a typo.<
Everyone makes mistakes. But that does not make John 5 wrong.

How do you explain John 5

>I already feel I explained John 5. <
You already feel you explained John 5??

How so?

>1 John 4:14 states: The Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the world.<
Mmm, the Father sent the Son. Not the Father sent himself. How does this prove that Jesus is his own father?

>Notice it doesn't say the Father created the son so he could be the savior of the world. <
Who said it would? Has anyone here said anything like that? No one is saying like that at all. Jesus was not created to be the saviour. But you are saying Jesus is his own father.

>It says HE SENT HIM.<
Mmmm; he sent him. Obviously not the same person.

> Phillipians 2: 5 Let this mind be in YOU which was also in Christ Jesus: verse 6. Who being in the FORM of GOD thought it NOT robbery to be equal with God:<

For some reason you like this verse. You keep bring it up, yet you cannot explain John 5 and how your ideas fit in with it.

Okay, let’s look at Philippians 2:6

Shall we go by the Kings James Version?
“Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:”

Is it as hard hitting as John 5?

Mmm, shall we consider the New Interlinear Version?
“Who, being in very nature* God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,”

Does that help you?

Shall we consider the English Standard Version
“who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,”

Does that one help you?

Shall we consider the New American Standard Bible
“who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,”

Does that one help you?

Shall we consider the Revised Standard Version
“who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,”

This one?

What about the American Standard Version
“who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped,”

Want me to stop?

With so many different translations and each one having their own slant on their interpretation, I don’t take much stock in individual words or picking out individual words from just one translation that I happen to like.

We all remember the Trinitarians little insertion of “The Father the Son and the Holy Ghost and these three are one.”

Funny how Trinitarians don’t like to remember their little hijacking of the Bible on that one.

>He is telling us to have the same attitude that Jesus had. And then he explains what that mind or attitude was... Humble, obedient servant... <

And that has relevance with arguing that Jesus is his own father … how?

>although Jesus was in the form of God and equal with God he DID NOT take advantage of this equality. <
Which is your opinion.

>INSTEAD HE ( JESUS) gave up His DIVINE right and took the humble position of a human being. <
Absolutely. But Jesus was not his own father. His divinity was that of the Son of God, the first of all creation, in subjection ONLY to God Yahweh himself. He humbled himself to become lower than the angels so as to live on the earth among humans, as a human being.

>FOR THIS REASON God has HIGHLY EXALTED HIM and has given in a Name above EVERY NAME<
Yes, God Yahweh highly exalted his son Jesus and God Yahweh gave his son a name or a position above every other name.

Proof that Yahweh and Jesus are two very separate and non-equal entities.

>This explains exactly why Jesus said what he did in John 5.<
Mmm, so THAT is your proof that Jesus is his own father?

How on earth, in anyone’s stretch of their imagination does that show in any way shape or form that Jesus is Yahweh?

>I do NOT avoid issues.<

Then tell us how John 5 shows Jesus is Yahweh.

Tut317 said
>I don't think the Trinity is to be understood as three parts of one thing e.g.. and apple or egg. I suggested earlier it was not really to be understood as 1+1+1=<

No one can decide on what it is supposed to be.

>In other words if x is the Son and y is the Father, then Oneness is true; provided X is identical to y. If something is true of the Son and not true of the Father then the Son is not identical to the Father. Oneness becomes false.<

The Son is in subjection to the Father, so they are not identical.
The Father is greater than the Son, so they are not identical.
The Father highly exalted the Son, so they are not identical.
The Father gave the Son a name that is above every other name, so they are not identical.
The Father sent the Son, so they are not identical.
The Father tells the Son what to do, so they are not identical.
The Father taught the Son, so they are not identical.
The Son obeys the Father, so they are not identical.
The Son is merely the reflection of his Father’s glory, so they are not identical.
The Son has no power of his own but only what the Father gives him, so they are no identical.

The faith that Trinitarians have is not faith in God, but faith in their church; faith that their church, although it does not make any sense at all, is telling them the truth.

Their faith is that although their church teachings are not in plain agreement with the Bible, their church is, in someway, in agreement with the Bible.

This is the faith Trinitarians have.

[TUT317]

Theology and philosophy don't mix well. No, the Identity of Indiscernibles is not a good starting point. Its Constitution Model is the only solution that seems to fits simply because of the notion of "relative sameness": It is possible that there are x, y, z, F, G, and H such that x is an F, y is an F, z is an F, x is a G, y is a G, z is a G, x is an H, y is an H, and z is an H, yet x is the same F as y, but x is not the same G as y, and so on. Since God is not material, this relative-sameness solution can only be an analogy.

Hi Wondergirl,


I would want to argue for 'absolute identity'. Now this is subject too much debate as to whether such a thing is possible. However, I see the important point being the following:

If we don't use theology/philosophy to try and explain the Trinity then people can rightly point out the weakness of our arguments. They can say that all we are saying in relation to the Trinity is that 1+1+1=1 or that the Trinity is like and egg or an apple. This is the same argument as 1+1+1=1. Quite rightly they would say these arguments don't make much sense.


Regards

Tut

[Wondergirl]

If we don't use theology/philosophy to try and explain the Trinity

That's why I said the Trinity is a mystery and can't be explained -- either by theology or by philosophy.

[dwashbur]

Classy T said

>1 John 4:14 states: The Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the world.<
Mmm, the Father sent the Son. Not the Father sent himself. How does this prove that Jesus is his own father?

>Notice it doesn't say the Father created the son so he could be the savior of the world. <
Who said it would? Has anyone here said anything like that? No one is saying like that at all. Jesus was not created to be the saviour. But you are saying Jesus is his own father.

You keep making this bogus claim even though NOBODY here has even come close to saying such a thing. It's a straw man, and a poorly constructed one at that. I don't know why you persist in misrepresenting us like this, but it's both annoying and counterproductive. You know that nobody makes the claim, which means you are deliberately falsifying our words. You may think you have the right to do that, but here's a news flash: you don't.

>It says HE SENT HIM.<
Mmmm; he sent him. Obviously not the same person.

Hail, master of the obvious (with apologies to Dominar Rygel XVI).

> Phillipians 2: 5 Let this mind be in YOU which was also in Christ Jesus: verse 6. Who being in the FORM of GOD thought it NOT robbery to be equal with God:<

For some reason you like this verse. You keep bring it up, yet you cannot explain John 5 and how your ideas fit in with it.

Okay, let’s look at Philippians 2:6

Shall we go by the Kings James Version?
“Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:”

Is it as hard hitting as John 5?

More so. It plainly says that Jesus was in very nature God, but voluntarily gave that all up in order to become like us.

I've snipped the various renderings, because apparently somebody can't seem to grasp the fact that they all say the same thing, just in slightly different terms. Rather than actually deal with the passage, citing several different translations is somehow supposed to explain it away.

With so many different translations and each one having their own slant on their interpretation, I don’t take much stock in individual words or picking out individual words from just one translation that I happen to like.

I'm not going to bother answering any more. It's plenty clear what is going on here, and I for one have better things to do.

[TUT317]

That's why I said the Trinity is a mystery and can't be explained -- either by theology or by philosophy.

Hi Wondergirl,

Person(s) here are saying that we cannot have a 3 in 1. Their explanation seems to be simple. They/he says that God(s) are at least two distinct entities.

The counter argument seems to be this:

It is possible to have a 3 in 1 with the proviso that we accept that it cannot be explained.

This does not seem to be much of a counter argument.


Regards

Tut

[classyT]

I Newton,

You want to understand a spirtual concept with your own logic. It appears you want to stay in John chapter 5 without comparing all other scriptures with it to make sure you are understanding it properly. John chapter 5 fits perfect with everything the bible has to say about the Lord Jesus Christ.. if you are willing to take a look at all scripture and decern it not with logic but with the Spirit of God.

God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are three distinct persons all in one. I don't understand it with my MIND. BUT believe it by Faith and because it is taught clearly in the bible. Take a look at the baptism of the Lord... God the Son is being baptized, God the Holy Spirited came down upon him like a Dove... and God the Father said clearly for all to here... This is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased. It is but one beautiful picture of the TRINITY.

Lets take a look a what the Bible says about a person who isn't spirtual and tries to understand a spiritual matter... shall we?

1 Corinthians 2:14
The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.
NIV

MMMM? Don't get that version lets try: New living version

But people who aren't spiritual can't receive these truths from God's Spirit. It all sounds foolish to them and they can't understand it, for only those who are spiritual can understand what the Spirit means.

Mmmmm? Still not driving my point home? How's about this one

International standard version:
A person who isn't spiritual doesn't accept the things of God's Spirit, for they are nonsense to him. He can't understand them because they are spiritually evaluated.

I think you see where I am going here... maybe you need to get a little more Holy spirit in you and a little less I NEWTON. I'm just saying... :)

[I Newton]

Sorry guys but Fr Church seems to having a little dummy spit and going on a little power trip with deleting any of my posts that embarrass him and his religion.

It is a little hard to keep posting and he just keeps deleting.

Have fun winning the argument with each other with trying to get your stories right.

[classyT]

I NEWTON,

This thread isn't about WINNING... it isn't about getting "stories right". It isn't about YOU at all.

It is about understanding a spirtual truth.

Psssst... ( We've all had a post deleted every now and again... get over it.)

[arcura]

I Newton,
You have made good point and made the well.
Thanks.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[arcura]

classyT,
Very well said and you are right.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[arcura]

I Newton,
Sorry but I agree with classyT, she is right about the Trinity.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[I Newton]

Yes, Jesus is his own father

[arcura]

I Newton,
Sorry but I do not understand what you are saying.
Jesus was and is the eternal WORD of God the Father and Holy Spirit.
God the Father is the father of Jesus the man, not the word.
I hope you can understand that.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[paraclete]

I Newton,
Sorry but I do not understand what you are saying.
Jesus was and is the eternal WORD of God the Father and Holy Spirit.
God the Father is the father of Jesus the man, not the word.
I hope you can understand that.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Don't confuse him Fred he has enough trouble with three in one

[I Newton]

Mmm, yes I do.

My wife and I are one, but I am not her and she is not me and we are not equal.

Sorry, I am just too stupid

[Athos]

Mmm, yes I do.

My wife and I are one, but I am not her and she is not me and we are not equal.

Sorry, I am just too stupid

You're not stupid, Newton, just honest. Nobody understands the Trinity, yet many will try to explain it.

[Moparbyfar]

WHAT? This thread is STILL open! :D:D

[I Newton]

Hi Mo

Silly isn't it?

It seems it is true, Jesus is his own father.

Just don't try and use the Bible as an authority to prove it.

You have to have faith in the church.