Am I right about the trinity?

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Pendragon

You can see the confusion of Trinitarians just by looking at the three crosses they put up outside their churches. Were the Father and Holy Spirit crucified as well? Are they commemorating the thieves?

The thieves.

[Luke]

Originally Posted by jfrog

That quote is fine. Your analogies are poo

Your examples aren't exampling what that quote is saying. Hopefully that makes more sense

I would have to disagree. The illustration of the incarnation of Jesus is a good illustration. Jesus was fully God and fully man at the same time. His humanity was not diety and His diety was not humanity. However the humanity of Jesus was 100% Jesus and the diety of Jesus was 100% Jesus yet there was a distinction. This is the same as the trinity. The Father is not the Son or the Holy Ghost just as the Son is not the Father or the Holy Ghost and the Holy Ghost is not the Father or the Son. However just as there was not two Jesus' walking around on earth (though there was in a literal sense two persons unified in one) there is not three God's though there be three persons unified in one.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Luke

I would have to disagree. The illustration of the incarnation of Jesus is a good illustration. Jesus was fully God and fully man at the same time. His humanity was not diety and His diety was not humanity. However the humanity of Jesus was 100% Jesus and the diety of Jesus was 100% Jesus yet there was a distinction. This is the same as the trinity. The Father is not the Son or the Holy Ghost just as the Son is not the Father or the Holy Ghost and the Holy Ghost is not the Father or the Son. However just as there was not two Jesus' walking around on earth (though there was in a literal sense two persons unified in one) there is not three God's though there be three persons unified in one.

Saying your analogies were bad isn't the same as saying there isn't a distinction. Your analogies were bad because you kept on picking things that had 3 parts and the 3 parts were not that thing themselves.

The trinity teaches that the Son both is and isn't the Father. I'll tell you how.

The trinity teaches the Son is the one being that is God. The trinity teaches the Father is the one being that is God. Therefore the Son is the same being as the father since there is only one being that is God. (This is how the trinity claims the Son is the Father and it's according to being). In other words, the Son is the Father according to being.

However, the trinity also teaches that the Son is a distinct person from the father. The Father does different actions than the Son. However it's one God that does all the actions. The Son does different actions than the Father but it's one God that does all the actions. In other words, the Son is not the Father according to person.

The trinity focuses more on the distinct persons of the Father and the Son than the single being that is both of them. They do this because of the numerous passages where the Father and Son are spoke of as distinct. However, while the focus is on the Father and Son being distinct the only way for them to both be God and not be different Gods is if they are both the same being.

With all this said, let me make a comparison. You are as those who attempt to deny the deity of Christ by pointing out that he was a man. I say this because they think that by showing Christ is something which cannot be God (a man) that it by necessity makes him not God. You think that by showing that the Father and Son are distinct that it will mean that you have proven that the Father is not the Son. That's not entirely the case though. They can be 100% distinct (The father is not the Son) while the Father is also 100% the Son. It's just in different ways. That's all. One according to being and the other according to person.

[Luke]

You will have hard time finding any post that I have posted in which I any way deny the diety of Jesus. How did you get that from my analogy?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Luke

You will have hard time finding any post that I have posted in which I any way deny the diety of Jesus. How did you get that from my analogy?

You totally missed his point. He didn't say you deny His deity, but are AS those who handle another issue in the same way people who deny His deity handle it.

Read it again:

" You are as those who attempt to deny the deity of Christ by pointing out that he was a man. I say this because they think that by showing Christ is something which cannot be God (a man) that it by necessity makes him not God. You think that by showing that the Father and Son are distinct that it will mean that you have proven that the Father is not the Son."

[Luke]

Originally Posted by mfblume

You totally missed his point. He didn't say you deny His deity, but are AS those who handle another issue in the same way people who deny His deity handle it.

Read it again:

" You are as those who attempt to deny the deity of Christ by pointing out that he was a man. I say this because they think that by showing Christ is something which cannot be God (a man) that it by necessity makes him not God. You think that by showing that the Father and Son are distinct that it will mean that you have proven that the Father is not the Son."

Very true I did mistake the meaning of the post I apologize jfrog. Thank you for pointing that out bro mfblume. However I do not see how what I posts could even seem to be like some who deny the diety of Jesus. Please elaborate.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Luke

Very true I did mistake the meaning of the post I apologize jfrog. Thank you for pointing that out bro mfblume. However I do not see how what I posts could even seem to be like some who deny the diety of Jesus. Please elaborate.

It was an analogy about thinking that asserting one thing is true means that something else which sounds contradictory cannot be true.

[Luke]

Originally Posted by jfrog

It was an analogy about thinking that asserting one thing is true means that something else which sounds contradictory cannot be true.

Did you disagree with the facts stated in the analogy about Jesus. I ask this because I don't see what I said that could be seen as contradictory. I understand you disagreeing with what I was attempting to prove but not with the facts stated.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Saying your analogies were bad isn't the same as saying there isn't a distinction. Your analogies were bad because you kept on picking things that had 3 parts and the 3 parts were not that thing themselves.

The trinity teaches that the Son both is and isn't the Father. I'll tell you how.

The trinity teaches the Son is the one being that is God. The trinity teaches the Father is the one being that is God. Therefore the Son is the same being as the father since there is only one being that is God. (This is how the trinity claims the Son is the Father and it's according to being). In other words, the Son is the Father according to being.

However, the trinity also teaches that the Son is a distinct person from the father. The Father does different actions than the Son. However it's one God that does all the actions. The Son does different actions than the Father but it's one God that does all the actions. In other words, the Son is not the Father according to person.

The trinity focuses more on the distinct persons of the Father and the Son than the single being that is both of them. They do this because of the numerous passages where the Father and Son are spoke of as distinct. However, while the focus is on the Father and Son being distinct the only way for them to both be God and not be different Gods is if they are both the same being.

With all this said, let me make a comparison. You are as those who attempt to deny the deity of Christ by pointing out that he was a man. I say this because they think that by showing Christ is something which cannot be God (a man) that it by necessity makes him not God. You think that by showing that the Father and Son are distinct that it will mean that you have proven that the Father is not the Son. That's not entirely the case though. They can be 100% distinct (The father is not the Son) while the Father is also 100% the Son. It's just in different ways. That's all. One according to being and the other according to person.

Exactly

I have no doubt that if I ever converted to Trinitarianism, I'd be more orthodox than most claimed Trinitarians today lol

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Luke

Did you disagree with the facts stated in the analogy about Jesus. I ask this because I don't see what I said that could be seen as contradictory. I understand you disagreeing with what I was attempting to prove but not with the facts stated.

I'm not trying to say you were being contradictory. I am trying to say That showing The son is not the father doesn't mean that it can't also be true that the son is the father.