About trinity in Christianity

[Subduction Zone]

Maybe they just saw and read about it.
A tangible piece of evidence that they were not expecting.
The smoking gun, sort of.

Not really. It is not a smoking gun for anything. It sounds like you are making stuff up.

 

[MJFlores]

Not really. It is not a smoking gun for anything. It sounds like you are making stuff up.

I wished that.
I would win all the time.
And I would scare the poop of everybody everytime.

 

[blü 2]

When was the first photograph taken?
1820's?
When was the last visit of Christ?
over two thousand years?

So on the basis of what evidence do you claim Jesus is still alive?

When he returns you are going to have a photo-op.

No, I've written that story off. He promised unambiguously to be back in the lifetime of some of his hearers, and that simply didn't happen. That's because (given he existed) he's dead.

The absence of a photograph does not mean
The person does not exist

Alive, is the question. We can go into 'Did an historical Jesus exist?' at some other time. Unless you're now claiming that Chris Columbus is still alive, no one is, so that's irrelevant.

You're the one claiming Jesus is still alive. Demonstrate that he is. He's real, you say, so nothing stops you showing us that photo.

 

[MJFlores]

So on the basis of what evidence do you claim Jesus is still alive?
No, I've written that story off. He promised unambiguously to be back in the lifetime of some of his hearers, and that simply didn't happen. That's because (given he existed) he's dead.
Alive, is the question. We can go into 'Did an historical Jesus exist?' at some other time. Unless you're now claiming that Chris Columbus is still alive, no one is, so that's irrelevant.

You're the one claiming Jesus is still alive. Demonstrate that he is. He's real, you say, so nothing stops you showing us that photo.

So on the basis of what evidence do you claim Jesus is still alive?

Mark 16:19
After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and he sat at the right hand of God.

Do I need to prove that?
I wasn't there when he went up.
Now he's gone how can you tell me to take a picture of him?

 

[Spirit of Light]

Truth is not a metaphor, agreed. I'd say that a statement is true to the extent that it corresponds with / accurately reflects objective reality.

And objective reality is the world external to the self / nature / the realm of the physical sciences.

How did you define truth?

To see things as they really are. Example from Buddhism is the truth about suffering, and the end of suffering. The only truth about suffering is there is a cause of suffering "past" the suffering is felt"present" and the end of suffering "future"
And the second truth is how to get out of suffering, and in Buddhism this is thru 8 Folded path, morality and the 5 precepts.
This truth is for the physical world and our 5 senses.
The truth outside this can only be experienced /grasped by cultivating the enlightenment or wisdom that arise when we as human beings letting go of the attachments to this physical realm.

Exmple from physical world: you look at a table it look solid you knock on the table it feels solid but when you examen the table under a mircoscope you could see thru it(if the mircoscope was strong enough. meaning it is mostly made up of empty space. not so solide after all. So our human eyes and our senses trick us in to experience it as something solid when it really is not.

a very simplifed answer.

 

[blü 2]

Mark 16:19
After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and he sat at the right hand of God.

That's not evidence. Fiction is not evidence. Nonsense is not evidence.

So you don't have a photo and you don't have a credible source, so it seems to me you simply assert your dreams, nothing factual.

Do I need to prove that?
I wasn't there when he went up.
Now he's gone how can you tell me to take a picture of him?

What do you mean, he's gone? You're the one asserting he's still alive.

Or is this another fantasy ─ he's still alive in fairyland, just not in reality?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I wished that.
I would win all the time.
And I would scare the poop of everybody everytime.

Only the very ignorant. And scaring ignorant people hardly counts as winning.

 

[blü 2]

To see things as they really are. Example from Buddhism is the truth about suffering, and the end of suffering.

That concept of truth differs from mine.

I'm attracted to the definition that offers an objective test for truth, rather than instinct and opinion (not to mention desire and error) and so on.

This truth is for the physical world and our 5 senses.
The truth outside this can only be experienced /grasped by cultivating the enlightenment or wisdom that arise when we as human beings letting go of the attachments to this physical realm.

We touched earlier on the distinction between the real and the imaginary, which is basic to my worldview.

Exmple from physical world: you look at a table it look solid you knock on the table it feels solid but when you examen the table under a mircoscope you could see thru it(if the mircoscope was strong enough.

I understand this idea, but I don't place the importance on it that some Buddhists do. I think the argument is available that it comes down to hadrons (as in 'Large Hadron Collider').

meaning it is mostly made up of empty space. not so solid after all. So our human eyes and our senses trick us in to experience it as something solid when it really is not.

But firstly, we all know about optical and aural illusions &c, we've all had to face up to our own delusions (favored errors) at some stage, which is why eyewitness testimony very rarely beats the video; and secondly we don't know about the spaces between atoms from Buddhism, we know it from science, surely?

 

[Spirit of Light]

That concept of truth differs from mine.

I'm attracted to the definition that offers an objective test for truth, rather than instinct and opinion (not to mention desire and error) and so on.
We touched earlier on the distinction between the real and the imaginary, which is basic to my worldview.
I understand this idea, but I don't place the importance on it that some Buddhists do. I think the argument is available that it comes down to hadrons (as in 'Large Hadron Collider').
But firstly, we all know about optical and aural illusions &c, we've all had to face up to our own delusions (favored errors) at some stage, which is why eyewitness testimony very rarely beats the video; and secondly we don't know about the spaces between atoms from Buddhism, we know it from science, surely?

Buddha did talk about What we today call science, but he did not

That concept of truth differs from mine.

I'm attracted to the definition that offers an objective test for truth, rather than instinct and opinion (not to mention desire and error) and so on.
We touched earlier on the distinction between the real and the imaginary, which is basic to my worldview.
I understand this idea, but I don't place the importance on it that some Buddhists do. I think the argument is available that it comes down to hadrons (as in 'Large Hadron Collider').
But firstly, we all know about optical and aural illusions &c, we've all had to face up to our own delusions (favored errors) at some stage, which is why eyewitness testimony very rarely beats the video; and secondly we don't know about the spaces between atoms from Buddhism, we know it from science, surely?

Well there’s this episode about a counting contest between the Buddha and a mathematician named Arjuna where the prince is asked to calculate both a very big number and, yes, a very, very small number. Is that hard? Well, the small problem was to count the number of — I guess you could call them — atoms, the smallest possible unit, in a yojana. What’s a yojanda? a yojana is an ancient unit of length equivalent to around 10 kilometers. So the question is, roughly: How many atoms are there in a line 10 kilometers long? Kind of. And here, courtesy of the ancient texts, is his solution: A yojana, the Buddha said, is equivalent to: Four krosha, each of which was the length of One thousand arcs, each of which was the length of Four cubits, each of which was the length of Two spans, each of which was the length of Twelve phalanges of fingers, each of which was the length of Seven grains of barley, each of which was the length of Seven mustard seeds, each of which was the length of Seven particles of dust stirred up by a cow, each of which was the length of Seven specks of dust disturbed by a ram, each of which was the length of Seven specks of dust stirred up by a hare, each of which was the length of Seven specks of dust carried away by the wind, each of which was the length of Seven tiny specks of dust, each of which was the length of Seven minute specks of dust, each of which was the length of Seven particles of the first atoms. So here’s the neat part: it turns out the Buddha’s calculation got the size of an atom very close to right! This was, in fact, a pretty good estimate. Just say that a finger is 4 centimeters long. The Buddha’s “first atoms” are, therefore, 4 centimeters divided by 7 ten times, which is 0.04 meter x 7 to the minus 10 or 0.00000000001416 meter, which is more or less the size of a carbon atom.

 

[Brickjectivity]

If a Muslim decided that Jesus was God-incarnate, he'd be half-way there to converting to Christianity.
Like a Christain deciding that Jesus wasn't valid prophet (and finding error in the 'god-incarnate' idea) but still clinging onto the Torah, he'd be almost a Jew.

In your hypothetical if a Muslim decided that Jesus was God-incarnate he'd be in a lot of trouble, just like if he'd said the Koran was only some book written by politicians. Its not possible for Muslims to do that. Many ideas are non-negotiable. Some are.

Your post doesn't seem to make any points, other than that you want to build a wall between yourself and Muslims.

A bridge between rich and poor is more important.

 

[blü 2]

Well there’s this episode about a counting contest [....] to calculate [...] the number of [...] atoms [...] in [...] an ancient unit [...] equivalent to around 10 kilometers. [...] the Buddha said [...] Four krosha, each [...] One thousand arcs, each [...] Four cubits, each [...] Two spans, each [...] Twelve phalanges [...] each [...] Seven grains of barley, each [...] Seven mustard seeds, each [...] Seven particles of dust stirred up by a cow, each [...] Seven specks [...] disturbed by a ram, each [...] Seven specks [...] stirred up by a hare, each Seven specks of dust carried away carried away by the wind, each [...] Seven tiny specks of dust, each [...] Seven minute specks of dust, each [...] Seven particles of the first atoms.

Forgive me if I think of it as a fine example of a fortunate guess, but as you say, it's pretty dinky. (Might I enquire the year in which the manuscript from which this recipe was obtained was written? No harm in a little skeptical enquiry here and there.)

But I'm still not clear on what test you use to see if some statement is true or not.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Forgive me if I think of it as a fine example of a fortunate guess, but as you say, it's pretty dinky. (Might I enquire the year in which the manuscript from which this recipe was obtained was written? No harm in a little skeptical enquiry here and there.)

But I'm still not clear on what test you use to see if some statement is true or not.

I start to think that no matter what i would present as Truth you would not accept that as a valied answer, something you are ofcourse welcome to do.

You see truth only from a scientific point of view where i see truth from a buddhist point of view.

 

[MJFlores]

That's not evidence. Fiction is not evidence. Nonsense is not evidence.

So you don't have a photo and you don't have a credible source, so it seems to me you simply assert your dreams, nothing factual.
What do you mean, he's gone? You're the one asserting he's still alive.

Or is this another fantasy ─ he's still alive in fairyland, just not in reality?

How can anyone have a photo?
When the first click of the first camera was made by Joseph Nicephore Niepce in 1814.
Next he is busy just for a selfie.

 

[MJFlores]

Only the very ignorant. And scaring ignorant people hardly counts as winning.

A win is a win for me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A win is a win for me.

It appears that you do not know what winning is either. Your verse only confirmed that the Bible says that other people have seen God.

One of the ways that we know that the Bible is not the "word of God" are the countless self contradictions in it. The writing in it is very sloppy at times and calling it the word of God is blasphemous to say the least since one is saying that not only is their God a liar. You are also claiming that he is an incompetent liar. You may not realize this but you keep claiming that your God is an incompetent liar. If he exists I do not think that he will like that.

 

[Spirit of Light]

I think this thread has become so far from the OP that i think it is time we end it, My purpose of the question about Trinity has not been fully investigated and now the thread as no value any more

 

[MJFlores]

I think this thread has become so far from the OP that i think it is time we end it, My purpose of the question about Trinity has not been fully investigated and now the thread as no value any more

It does have value.
It is a hotly contested topic.
There are just some distractions because a couple of us here are still groping with the idea of God.
They have a hard time grasping who God is because according to the Holy Bible - they are perishing.
The Trinity is not an exclusive Catholic dogma
It exist in pagan religions and in Hinduism.
It is really a weird concept.
Like the Tres Amigos or the Three Stooges.
But this doctrine no matter how weird, no matter how flimsy the defenses are against it - still people adhere to it.

 

[MJFlores]

It appears that you do not know what winning is either. Your verse only confirmed that the Bible says that other people have seen God.

One of the ways that we know that the Bible is not the "word of God" are the countless self contradictions in it. The writing in it is very sloppy at times and calling it the word of God is blasphemous to say the least since one is saying that not only is their God a liar. You are also claiming that he is an incompetent liar. You may not realize this but you keep claiming that your God is an incompetent liar. If he exists I do not think that he will like that.

The topic is the Trinity and what you want to say about it.
To refresh things about the Trinity
They say it suppose to be like this:

Yikes!

 

[InChrist]

Yesterday I spoke with a very nice taxi driver and we came in on religion, He a Muslim and I Buddhist had a very nice chat, so he asked me if I understand the trenity of Christianity, but I was uncertain
My question is, is there anyone who can explain the Trinity for me?

I like these articles linked below about the triune nature of the Godhead. I really find that One God as three Persons makes perfect sense because this includes unity with plurality, which I think must have existed as the first Source of Love and it appears that God's trunity is reflected throughout creation.

The Bible presents a God who did not need to create any beings to experience love, communion and fellowship. This God is complete in Himself, being three Persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit, separate and distinct, yet at the same time eternally one God. They loved and communed and fellowshiped with each other and took counsel together before the universe, angels or man were brought into existence.
The Trinity


In Romans:1:20
Paul argues that God’s “eternal power and Godhead” are seen in the creation He made. God’s eternal power, yes – but His Godhead? Yes! As Dr. Wood pointed out in The Secret of the Universe, the triune nature of God is stamped on His creation. The cosmos is divided into three: space, matter, and time. Each of these is divided into three. Space, for instance, is composed of length, breadth, and height, each separate and distinct in itself, yet the three are one. Length, breadth, and height are not three spaces but three dimensions comprising one space. Run enough lines lengthwise and you take in the whole. But so it is with the width and height. Each is separate and distinct, yet each is all of space – just as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is each God.

Time also is a trinity: past, present, and future – two invisible and one visible. Each is separate and distinct, yet each is the whole. Man himself is a trinity of spirit, soul, and body, two of which are invisible, and one visible. Many more details could be given of the Godhead’s trinity reflected in the universe. It can hardly be coincidence.
Nuggets from An Urgent Call to a Serious Faith by Dave Hunt - Nature and Trinity

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Yours is not an accepted christian view

You know what is an “accepted Christian view”?

To fight and kill for the land you were born in. IOW, the leaders of Christendom tell their parishioners that their national brotherhood is more valuable than their spiritual brotherhood.

Is that what Christ taught? Is that “acceptable” to him? Don’t you think that his view should be more important? John 13:34-35; John 15:10-12,17; Matthew 5:44.

1 John 3:10-15 makes it very easy to distinguish.

Yet, what reputations have the organizations of Christendom built for themselves? Both World Wars revealed what Christendom cherished. In stead of supporting Christlike love among their brothers, they disobeyed Christ in favor of supporting their national heritage.

They are supposed to be ‘hated by the world’, yet they chose to be accepted by the world, joining in bloodshed.

Painful words, I know....the truth hurts....but it’s mostly the leaders of Christendom that failed. The sheep have been misled by false shepherds. For many centuries!