A question for Trinitarians.

Let’s check the math on the Trinity.
Math never lies.

Is God/Trinity 100% God or 300% or 400% ?

God the Father is 100% God.
God the Holy Spirit is 100% God.
God the Son is 100% God.
Jesus is 100% Man.

All would have their individual Natures. These natures should all be equal yet scripture is clear that they are not. I E. Cursing the Holy Spirit.

The Trinity must then consist of the God the Father nature, God the Holy Spirit nature, Jesus/God Nature and Jesus/Man Nature.

Is that not four distinct Natures?

Trinity means three, should we not be calling it something else?
Monotheism is one, should Christianity take that title or attribute?



Regards
DL

I know people are always trying to make the doctrine of the Trinity some great mystery, or they think they have found a contradiction; and even if the doctrine is contradictory, so what - all this means is that your definition is wrong.

Let me see if my simple mind can explain this doctrine. Supposedly you have three person all partaking of the same nature. Not one person existing as three persons, which is clearly contradictory, but three persons that have the same nature or essence. Is there anything analogous to this in nature? The answer is yes. There is only one thing that is, i.e., one thing that can exist in three separate forms, yet partake of the same nature or essence. Water, ice, and steam can all exist separately, and they all partake of the same nature - H2O. Hence, there is one essence or nature, and three separate things partake of that nature, just as it happens in the so-called doctrine of the Trinity. Now does this explain everything about the Trinity? No, but it does show how it maybe metaphysically possible.

Humans all partake of a similar nature, but not all of our natures are the same, i.e., we don't all have complete knowledge; we are not all-powerful; and we are not omnipresent; however, what if we were, would their be a contradiction in saying that all humans partake of the same nature? We could all partake of the same nature and yet have different experiences. These experiences would separate each individual from every other individual. Just a thought.

Sam26 wrote:
I know people are always trying to make the doctrine of the Trinity some great mystery, or they think they have found a contradiction; and even if the doctrine is contradictory, so what - all this means is that your definition is wrong.

Let me see if my simple mind can explain this doctrine. Supposedly you have three person all partaking of the same nature. Not one person existing as three persons, which is clearly contradictory, but three persons that have the same nature or essence. Is there anything analogous to this in nature? The answer is yes. There is only one thing that is, i.e., one thing that can exist in three separate forms, yet partake of the same nature or essence. Water, ice, and steam can all exist separately, and they all partake of the same nature - H2O. Hence, there is one essence or nature, and three separate things partake of that nature, just as it happens in the so-called doctrine of the Trinity. Now does this explain everything about the Trinity? No, but it does show how it maybe metaphysically possible.

Humans all partake of a similar nature, but not all of our natures are the same, i.e., we don't all have complete knowledge; we are not all-powerful; and we are not omnipresent; however, what if we were, would their be a contradiction in saying that all humans partake of the same nature? We could all partake of the same nature and yet have different experiences. These experiences would separate each individual from every other individual. Just a thought.

The thing is that H20 will know all that H20 knows and will be equivalent with h20 regardless of being water, ice or steam.

The Trinity is otherwise.

John 14:28
Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

Matthew 24:36
No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

See the difference and what does this do to your scenario?

Regards
DL

If God is analogous to water, ice and vapor then the Holy Ghost is vapor, Jesus is water and the Father and God of the O T is ice.

O T God deserves to have lost our love and it is no wonder that He was replaced by Jesus.



Or at least the Bible writers hoped that we would be forgiving enough to accept Jesus. I am not.
I do not mind Jesus so much even with his unworkable sayings as a Rabbi and fully human but if he is the O T God then I have a bullet with justice and his name written on it.

That is justice for any that would use genocide on man.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am wrote:
Humans all partake of a similar nature, but not all of our natures are the same, i.e., we don't all have complete knowledge; we are not all-powerful; and we are not omnipresent; however, what if we were, would their be a contradiction in saying that all humans partake of the same nature? We could all partake of the same nature and yet have different experiences. These experiences would separate each individual from every other individual. Just a thought.[/quote]

The thing is that H20 will know all that H20 knows and will be equivalent with h20 regardless of being water, ice or steam.

The Trinity is otherwise.

John 14:28
Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

Matthew 24:36
No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

See the difference and what does this do to your scenario?

Regards
DL[/quote]
I am not going to try and defend every verse in the Bible, because I can't, and I don't think anyone can. However, there are two issues here, the Trinity, and the incarnation (God becoming man) - the way I understand part of the incarnation doctrine, is that God purposely came in the form of a human, i.e., he purposely limited himself by taking on the body of a human. Hence, if this is true, then I don't see a problem with the verses you picked.

Any person (and I believe God is a person) can choose to limit themselves for a variety of reasons, and they can do this for a period of time, so I don't see why it so hard to fathom that God could choose to limit himself for a finite period of time (God the Son). I don't see any problem here. Therefore, as he took on the form of a human he did not possess the same knowledge that the father possessed, etc, etc.

This my take on it - for what it's worth.

I believe that the Bible, all Bibles and Words have some wisdom but that none should be read literally or too seriously. They are myth only.

To believe that you should read a book, that begins with a talking animal, is interspersed with all kinds of impossible miracles and ends with a seven headed monster, as literally true, is silly.
To also believe that a book that has a God that thinks it is better to genocide a complete population instead of curing it, when He easily can, is just too immoral to believe.

Why would you buy into fantasy in your search for God?

I know you do not believe it is fantasy, but fuck Sam, you have to know deep down that animals cannot talk, humans cannot walk on water and how can Jesus live before his mother was yet to be born?

Oops, mystery, oops unfathomable, oops go and hide because you cannot explain it.
Getting your own mother pregnant is so-----Yuk.
Rethink for God's sake.
Mankind deserves a true God not some chimera half breed..

Regards
DL