Nothing Short Of Perfection

[Glaurung]

Yes each person fully hole, I am my Godself too we are all fully hole fully God.

This isn't even coherent English. Yet alone a real point.

 

[Riders]

Yes I was sleepy so I misspelled whole as hole. Forgive me for my misspelling

This isn't even coherent English. Yet alone a real point.

However your saying its not coherent ? Lets see.Ill get the definition for coherent hold on.

 

[Riders]

The definition for coherent is (of an argument, theory, or policy) logical and consistent.

Well I know this isnt a policy , and it cant be an argument, because this is Christian DIR.

ARe you saying you Christians put this up here to debate and start an argument?

If not its a theory. Lets see what theory means.

 

[Riders]

Heres theory definition: Theory is a contemplative and rational type of abstract or generalizing thinking, or the results of such thinking. Depending on the context, the results might for example include generalized explanations of how nature works. The word has its roots in ancient Greek, but in modern use it has taken on several different related meanings. A theory is not the same as a hypothesis.

Sounds like others can have their own theory which isn't the same as yours.

I guess that would mean that your statement isn't the absolute truth and others are free to have their own theorys. Saying mine isn't coherant is just your theory not a fact.

Coherant is theory. so.

Saying yours isn't coherent let alone a real point, a real point is the same thing as theory too, that means you repeated yourself.

 

[Glaurung]

Yes I was sleepy so I misspelled whole as hole. Forgive me for my misspelling

It isn't even your spelling, it breaks the rules of syntax too. It's nonsensical.

Of course I understand that you're trying to satirise the Trinity, but you're just coming off to me a silly. So unless you have something of value to actually say to me, I will stop wasting my time with you.

Lets see.Ill get the definition for coherent hold on

(of spoken or written language) expressed in an incomprehensible or confusing way; unclear.

https://www.google.com.au/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#safe=off&q=incoherent
Now re-read post 420 and ask yourself if it's coherent. (Or even grammatical)

 

[Riders]

Coming on here and making announcements that your polytheistic Greek belief in the Trinity and screaming it as fact to me is not coherant.

If my sentences did not make sense to you, you would not be able to read it.

Stateing your belief I fact and then announceong at us theres nothing ungrammatical about 3 persons in one essence (who said it was ungramaticle?)

Then saying theres no contradictory in it as if its a fact and not to be argued with makes you someone who is use to being a dictator. Shouting people down and announceing your beliefs as fact that cant be argued with does you no good.Why are you here?

 

[Riders]

It isn't even your spelling, it breaks the rules of syntax too.


(of spoken or written language) expressed in an incomprehensible or confusing way; unclear.

https://www.google.com.au/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#safe=off&q=incoherent
Now re-read post 420 and ask yourself if it's coherent. (Or even grammatical)

Yes each person fully hole, I am my Godself too we are all fully hole fully God

Its one sentence and 14 words long..I put my comma in where it should be and I capitalized my letters.

Seeing that its 1 tiny sentence any 7 year old could read I don't follow you. I should've put a period after too. I see that now.

However again I'm not buying that you could not read it. If you couldn't read it, one tiny sentence, you wouldn't have gotten upset and defensive.

You would've ignored it because its one small sentence.

Maybe your upset because there are those of us who don't believe in your Godhead and call ourselves Metaphysical Christians.

How dare us! I'm going to the Unity church where they preach everything I said that you said is incoherant.

How about them apples? I'm going to church there next month ! Were celebrating Jesus and Christmas together and we don't believe in the diety of Jesus.

Well,my syntax has been off. Thi is a debate room or Christian DIR,not college.

 

[Glaurung]

Coming on here and making announcements that your polytheistic Greek belief in the Trinity and screaming it as fact to me is not coherant.

What has my response to leibowde84 to do with you? If you wish to discuss the Trinity that's fine, but rambling nonsensically at me isn't the way to go about it.

If my sentences did not make sense to you, you would not be able to read it.

At this point, it is more that I don't even know what you're talking about. There's no context to anything you're telling me.

Stateing your belief I fact and then announceong at us theres nothing ungrammatical about 3 persons in one essence (who said it was ungramaticle?)

You said the trinity was incoherent. Incoherence either means that a concept doesn't make logical sense, or that it is expressed ungrammatically. (The words themselves don't make sense).

Then saying theres no contradictory in it as if its a fact and not to be argued with makes you someone who is use to being a dictator. Shouting people down and announceing your beliefs as fact that cant be argued with does you no good.Why are you here?

I'm happy to discuss my beliefs and have them challenged. In fact these forums (by the large) are arguably hostile to them. It's that you are not making any sense. You've come out of nowhere and have rambled at me. Not only is your grasp on English tenuous, there's no context to anything you're talking about and I'm losing my patience. So I'm now done with you.

If you wish to discuss the Trinity, (or anything else for that matter) go and start you own thread. Lay out your objections and construct something of a real argument. If you do that, then we could have a real discussion.

Good day.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

No. One God, three persons; each person wholly God.
One godhead exists as three, co-eternal persons each person holding the entirety of the one godhead. There is no other "god". It's not that hard to understand, even if it's impossible for us to satisfactorily imagine or define.

Didn't the heavenly Jesus - Revelation 1:5; Revelation 3:14 B - say he was the beginning of the creation by God ?
Since only God was before the beginning being from everlasting - Psalms 90:2, then the pre-human Jesus was Not before the beginning as God was before the beginning.

In Scripture, was God ever considered as first born, yet isn't Jesus first born of every creation - Colossians 1:15

Since the resurrected ascended-to-heaven Jesus still has a God over him, then how can Jesus be equal to God ?
- Revelation 3:12
How any thrones are mentioned at Revelation 3:21 ? _______
How many thrones are needed for one person ? _______

 

[leibowde84]

To me, it depends on how you're looking at it. If "God" is seen to mean "Godhead" and the word "Godhead " is considered to be a collective noun, like team or jury or committee, then it is comprised of more than one individual, both of which may share the same title. If all members of the Godhead are united in will, purpose, mind, heart, power, glory, etc., then they are "one God" in the same way that the following examples from the Bible reflect absolute and perfect unity:

Exodus 24:3 "And Moses came and told the people all the words of the LORD, and all the judgments: and all the people answered with one voice, and said, All the words which the LORD hath said will we do."

2 Corinthians 13:11 "Finally, brethren, farewell. Be perfect, be of good comfort, be of one mind, live in peace; and the God of love and peace shall be with you."

Acts 4:32 "And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common."

But, that doesn't make any sense. A member of a committee, for example, is a "committee-member". Each member wouldn't be referred to as a committee. The committee is the group, not each individual member. And, with "Godhead", that would be synonymous with a committee head or chairperson. So, it would be counter-intuitive to have each member of the trinity be a "Godhead", right?

I apologize, as this is getting into semantics, but I find semantics interesting. So, thanks for humoring me.

 

[leibowde84]

No. One God, three persons; each person wholly God.

One godhead exists as three, co-eternal persons each person holding the entirety of the one godhead. There is no other "god". It's not that hard to understand, even if it's impossible for us to satisfactorily imagine or define.

I disagree. That is almost impossible to understand. You are making a claim that contradicts itself.

Are you trying to say that each person is a part of the whole, which is God.

 

[Katzpur]

But, that doesn't make any sense. A member of a committee, for example, is a "committee-member". Each member wouldn't be referred to as a committee. The committee is the group, not each individual member. And, with "Godhead", that would be synonymous with a committee head or chairperson. So, it would be counter-intuitive to have each member of the trinity be a "Godhead", right?

I apologize, as this is getting into semantics, but I find semantics interesting. So, thanks for humoring me.

No problem (humoring you, I mean). Many dictionaries list "God" and "Godhead" as synonyms for one another, and yet God is generally used as a singular noun while Godhead is used as a collective noun. If, in fact, they are synonyms, though, there could be a degree of overlap. For Trinitarian Christians, there would almost have to be an overlap between the words "God" and "the Trinity" since they insist that even though the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are all "God," there is only one "God." When I personally use the word "God," most of the time I am speaking of a single individual within the Godhead. I could, however, be speaking of all three of the members of the Godhead collectively, in which case "God" would be a title that they share.

 

[Clear]

Many dictionaries list "God" and "Godhead" as synonyms for one another, and yet God is generally used as a singular noun while Godhead is used as a collective noun. If, in fact, they are synonyms, though, there could be a degree of overlap. For Trinitarian Christians, there would almost have to be an overlap between the words "God" and "the Trinity" since they insist that even though the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are all "God," there is only one "God." When I personally use the word "God," most of the time I am speaking of a single individual within the Godhead. I could, however, be speaking of all three of the members of the Godhead collectively, in which case "God" would be a title that they share.

Hi Katzpur :

I don't really want to enter into your discussion per se, but just wanted to comment on one specific use of language regarding "god" and "godhead".

Obviously your point is correct. However, I do not think most other individuals have used the term “Godhead” such that it is part of their normal vocabulary. They may not be aware of the common use of this semantic.

In actuality, they are using your example all of the time when they read the bible, they are just unaware of it. For example, your example of distinction between “God” and “Godhead” exists in the context of discussing אלהיחם (God – plural) and אל (God, singular). For example, while Jesus, in Matthew 27:46 uses אל in the singular when he says (אלי) “my God, my God.....” , Genesis uses אלהיחם (Gods plural) for a singular in Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning, God(s) created heaven and earth…”. However, despite the difference between the singular and plural, both words are often translated as “God” (singular), despite their actual difference in meaning. (Of course one can refer to the early doctrine that the Father directs and the Son creates to explain why a plurality is correct in this case...)

I think this translation of a plural is often rendered as a singular, to avoid the appearance of polytheism. Individuals generally want to describe the plural “Gods” as a singular ("collective" “God” in the same way that “Godhead” also may be simply rendered "God".

However, even in our profane use of words, such examples are found. For example, we might say the “presidency”, referring to either a presidency of one person (e.g. “president Lincoln”), or in referring to the larger presidency of two (e.g. Obama, and Biden, etc.), or a presidency of three (Peter, James and John, or the presidency of the LDS church), etc. The dead sea scrolls description of their “presidency” of three over their quorum of twelve leaders is another example of a religious use of this concept.

Kudos to you for being aware of this linguistic phenomenon

See you Katzpur


Clear
ειτζειφιτωω

 

[Glaurung]

I disagree. That is almost impossible to understand. You are making a claim that contradicts itself.

That person and being are distinct isn't hard to understand. The difficulty is in our limited ability of visualisation. I cannot picture the Trinity any more than you, but like a four dimensional object my inability to actually picture it doesn't make the concept impossible or contradictory.

Are you trying to say that each person is a part of the whole, which is God.

No, the orthodox view states that each person is God entirely.

 

[leibowde84]

That person and being are distinct isn't hard to understand. The difficulty is in our limited ability of visualisation. I cannot picture the Trinity any more than you, but like a four dimensional object my inability to actually picture it doesn't make the concept impossible or contradictory.


No, the orthodox view states that each person is God entirely.

How can each part of a whole simultaneously be the whole itself? It seems contradictory because it defies reason.

 

[Glaurung]

How can each part of a whole simultaneously be the whole itself? It seems contradictory because it defies reason.

There's no contradiction because there is still only one whole. There is only one being, one essence that comprises God. It is just that God exists as three distinct identities (or persons) each co-eternal, equal and containing the entirety of that one essence or being. In other words, each person contains the entirety of what God is, but not the who. The who is distinct for each person.

Of course, I cannot picture what that actually looks like as that is beyond human capacity. It defies reason only to the extent that you insist on reason as being limited to what you can visualise.

 

[leibowde84]

There's no contradiction because there is still only one whole. There is only one being, one essence that comprises God. It is just that God exists as three distinct identities (or persons) each co-eternal, equal and containing the entirety of that one essence or being. In other words, each person contains the entirety of what God is, but not the who. The who is distinct for each person.

Of course, I cannot picture what that actually looks like as that is beyond human capacity. It defies reason only to the extent that you insist on reason as being limited to what you can visualise.

You are wrong. I am in no way limiting reason to what can be visualized. I am merely limiting it to what does not defy the laws of logic.

Parts of a whole cannot each be the whole itself simultaneously. And, if each part of God is God on its own then, logically, there must be more than one entity considered to be God. Thus, more than one God.

 

[Glaurung]

You are wrong. I am in no way limiting reason to what can be visualized. I am merely limiting it to what does not defy the laws of logic.

And I am telling you that it does no such thing.

Parts of a whole cannot each be the whole itself simultaneously. And, if each part of God is God on its own then, logically, there must be more than one entity considered to be God. Thus, more than one God.

No and no. You don't have to accept it, but the Trinity isn't a controversial question. The problem is entirely your own.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Yes it is,its poly its 3 Gods Polytheism but they wont admit it.


I apologize but I’m not following you. Are you now saying because I sometimes don’t tell the truth I’m incapable of recognizing truth?

The Bible is wholly true. How can I be certain of its inerrancy? Because I’ve been presented, personally, with hundreds of different accusations regarding the Bible, including alleged contradictions. I’ve researched each one and found simple reconciliations in context, in the source languages, etc. So I’ve not found any doubts to be reasonable. Researching contradictions is one example, I can provide more.

You decided it as true up front because you wanted it to be for whatever reason. You did mental gymnastics to try and reconcile and convince yourself.

WHy so defensive? Others are providing posts with a couple of paragraphs a few at the most. Your responding with 25 pages on every post?

Huh? How did you know "I decided it as true up front for whatever reason". You don't know my reasons, so how can you say I made a decision not to look at the evidence with care?

 

[BilliardsBall]

How can each part of a whole simultaneously be the whole itself? It seems contradictory because it defies reason.

You've said this twice now. Where in the Bible does it say something like "The Holy Spirit is all of God" (the part is the whole)?