 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
sofyst
Tiger
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 830
Location: Tejas
|
 Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 9:07 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
I am attempting to bring back the parallel between humanity and deity. Every person that is called human possesses the attribute (attributes) that are essential for one to be human. If these persons did not possess these attributes, they could not be called 'human'. Therefore, we have multiple persons possessing identical and the same attributes without in any way destroying their individual person hood.
In like manner, every person of the Trinity possesses the essential attributes for them to be called deity. Jesus possesses everything that is required for one to be called divine. As does the Father and the Spirit. If these attributes were to be given up or no longer had, they would cease to be divine. And as in the case of humans, we have multiple persons possessing identical and the same attributes without in any way destroying their individual person hood.
Now, I divine that you are going to attempt to throw up the argument that there is a difference between 'deity' and 'God', as God is a being, and deity is an attribute (if we can call it such - what do we call 'humanity'?). I do not think this the case, as I think that 'God' is the same as 'deity'.
I am then saying that each person is identical in so far as they possesses the qualities that make them divine, yet different in the way that they perform different roles or functions, as the different persons that are human do (the Father sends, the Son is sent).
In my line of thinking the term 'God' is not synonymous with the being that is triune, but rather the attribute of deity. In this way the one being is God or divine or deity, but likewise the Son is God in that He is as divine as the Father.
To then oppose or counter this argument, I think you must prove that 'being' is exclusively limited to one person, and that two persons cannot share the same being.
_________________
simul justus et peccator
the Protestant pub |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
apocatastasis
King of the Jungle
Joined: 15 Feb 2004
Posts: 1827
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 10:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I am then saying that each person is identical in so far as they possesses the qualities that make them divine, yet different in the way that they perform different roles or functions, as the different persons that are human do (the Father sends, the Son is sent). |
Ok, so each Person possesses some attributes that the others don't? This must mean then that they each have traits that are not divine for if they are each fully divine and yet distinct from each other, their distinguishing traits must lie outside of their shared divinity. Is this your position?
| Quote: |
In my line of thinking the term 'God' is not synonymous with the being that is triune, but rather the attribute of deity. |
Ok, in that case, your humanity-deity comparison makes more sense. I'm sure you can understand my presumption that you would be using the term 'God' in a way that Trinitarians typically use the word - as a noun. That you are using it as an adjective clears things up some.
| Quote: | | To then oppose or counter this argument, I think you must prove that 'being' is exclusively limited to one person, and that two persons cannot share the same being. |
Looks like we're going to have to define 'being'. I suspect that you are going to define along the lines of essence. Would I be correct?
_________________
"Overcome anger by love. Overcome evil by good. Overcome the miser by giving. Overcome the liar by truth." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sofyst
Tiger
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 830
Location: Tejas
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 12:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Ok, so each Person possesses some attributes that the others don't? This must mean then that they each have traits that are not divine for if they are each fully divine and yet distinct from each other, their distinguishing traits must lie outside of their shared divinity. Is this your position? |
We both have the trait of 'humanness'. By this we are human. Yet you have the attribute of being a loveable guy and I the attribute of being a lecherous fool. But according to your argument above, both of these traits would have to be inhuman since we both do not share each...that is of course unless your argument is moot and not applicable to anything. 
Divinity or humanity is not a summation of all traits that the Deity or Human possess, but rather a degree or flavor, if you will, of the different traits. One is not divine because they possess divine love, but rather possess divine love because they are divine.
| Quote: | | Ok, in that case, your humanity-deity comparison makes more sense. I'm sure you can understand my presumption that you would be using the term 'God' in a way that Trinitarians typically use the word - as a noun. That you are using it as an adjective clears things up some. |
The confusion arises only because this being (Yahweh) is the only being that is divine. If you consider when Adam and Eve were created, and there were no other but them, terming them 'humanity' would have been right and accurate. In reality, 'humanity' is an adjective, but it can be used as a noun when referring to the collective of persons that possess the attribute of humanity. Before Eve was created, Adam was in truth 'humanity' (perhaps this gives us light on how 'humanity' could have sinned when it was only Adam within the garden???).
In this way you see how 'God' can refer to the deity of this being, Yahweh, and yet likewise be a reference to the being.
| Quote: | | Looks like we're going to have to define 'being'. I suspect that you are going to define along the lines of essence. Would I be correct? |
I don't really know. What do you mean by 'essence'?
_________________
simul justus et peccator
the Protestant pub |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
apocatastasis
King of the Jungle
Joined: 15 Feb 2004
Posts: 1827
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 8:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
Very good, sofyst. I think we're ready to move the discussion to the next level. How does it make logical sense to speak of one being as three persons?
_________________
"Overcome anger by love. Overcome evil by good. Overcome the miser by giving. Overcome the liar by truth." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sofyst
Tiger
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 830
Location: Tejas
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 8:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
The question is not to ask me how it makes logical sense, but rather to ask you why you would say it is illogical.
You see, in observing nature and all that is around us in humanity, we see that normally one being is held by only one person. The two are normally synonymous.
Yet when one is confronted with the Scripture, we see a different being all together (perhaps this is the whole 'otherness' of God...God is not like us! Strange and odd...I thought God was exactly like humans...but I digress). When we read through the Scriptures we see three different persons sharing one being.
So we can look at this and say, 'hmmm, strange!' and accept it and wonder and awe in the magnificence that it is. But we cannot say, 'that is illogical!'
The only way we can say, 'that is illogical!', is for us to first be shown that logically one person only can be in possession of a being, or a 'being' can only have one person associated with it.
Are you willing to do that?
_________________
simul justus et peccator
the Protestant pub |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
apocatastasis
King of the Jungle
Joined: 15 Feb 2004
Posts: 1827
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 9:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | The question is not to ask me how it makes logical sense, but rather to ask you why you would say it is illogical. |
If I'm not mistaken, it si you, not I, making the extraordinary claim. In every day language, a person is a being. Never do we speak of one being as multiple persons, unless we are talking about multiple personality disorder.
| Quote: | | You see, in observing nature and all that is around us in humanity, we see that normally one being is held by only one person. The two are normally synonymous. |
Indeed, which is why the burden is on you to explain what it could possibly mean for one beign to be more than one person.
| Quote: | | Yet when one is confronted with the Scripture, we see a different being all together (perhaps this is the whole 'otherness' of God...God is not like us! Strange and odd...I thought God was exactly like humans...but I digress). |
Are you equvocating on the term 'being'? In what sense is God a being?
| Quote: | | When we read through the Scriptures we see three different persons sharing one being. |
I've yet to read that in Scripture.
| Quote: | | So we can look at this and say, 'hmmm, strange!' and accept it and wonder and awe in the magnificence that it is. But we cannot say, 'that is illogical!' |
Sure we can. It would be illogical when applied to people, so why not illogical when applied to God?
| Quote: | The only way we can say, 'that is illogical!', is for us to first be shown that logically one person only can be in possession of a being, or a 'being' can only have one person associated with it.
Are you willing to do that? |
Sofyst, you must understand, I don't even know what it could possibly mean to say that one being is more than one person. I simply cannot conceive it! It is meaningless nonsense until someone like yourself can make sense out of it for me. It's like trying to imagine that one person can be three beings. It is an incongruent notion.
_________________
"Overcome anger by love. Overcome evil by good. Overcome the miser by giving. Overcome the liar by truth." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sofyst
Tiger
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 830
Location: Tejas
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 11:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | If I'm not mistaken, it si you, not I, making the extraordinary claim. In every day language, a person is a being. Never do we speak of one being as multiple persons, unless we are talking about multiple personality disorder. |
No, no...I agree completely, by asserting that God is three persons in one being, we are making an extraordinary claim. But Christianity is all about the extraordinary claims. In every day speech we do not see men that can heal other men's sicknesses or raise the dead, we do not see men that can walk on water. But the Scriptures tell us that Jesus did exactly this. We then, as faithful Christians, accept this 'extraordinary' by faith and revel in its majesty.
If however, someone is to come along and challenge these claims, they cannot simply plead to the 'everyday speech' and say that normally men do not walk on water. They must first prove that it is impossible to walk on water.
You must do just this. In everyday speech three persons cannot be one being. Christianity then claims that this is so in the case of God. You either must accept the extraordinary claim of Christianity and the Christian Scriptures, or you must prove why the claim is illogical, irrational or impossible.
Can you do such?
Once again, you cannot plead to 'everyday speech', as this is asinine and will make you inconsistent if you do accept Jesus walking on water yet not the Trinity doctrine.
| Quote: | | Indeed, which is why the burden is on you to explain what it could possibly mean for one being to be more than one person. |
Once again, the burden is not upon me. I am not claiming that the Trinity is natural or ordinary, I am claiming that it is supernatural and extraordinary. For one to reject the supernatural or extraordinary, they must prove that these two are false. We cannot look to men being unable to walk on water normally to prove that Jesus could not have. We need to first prove that it is impossible in every situation and always for men to walk on water...
The burden of proof is upon you my friend.
| Quote: | | Are you equvocating on the term 'being'? In what sense is God a being? |
When I say 'being', I am speaking of existence. I exist. You exist. Your existence is separate than my own. If you ceased to exist, I would still be. The three members of the Godhead share an existence. They share a 'being'.
| Quote: | | I've yet to read that in Scripture. |
Which part of Scripture are you mistaken on? The part wherein there is but one God only, or the part in which Jesus is God and the Spirit is God? I can help the confusion by showing you the plethora of Scripture wherein this claim is validated. I could show you the history of the church wherein this conflict has been long settled and those who reject Scripture and attempt to posit assertions based upon 'everyday speech' have been rebutted as attempting to claim extra-Scriptural garbage. Which direction would you have us take?
| Quote: | | Sure we can. It would be illogical when applied to people, so why not illogical when applied to God? |
Again, stop throwing around the term 'illogical' without any backing. It is not 'illogical' for three persons to share the same being, it is just not normal. You have yet to prove why logic mandates that one person only can have one being. If you continue to fail to do such, and continue to throw up an unwarranted claim of 'illogical', I am going to continue to call you out on it.
Why is it illogical fore three persons to share one being?
| Quote: | | Sofyst, you must understand, I don't even know what it could possibly mean to say that one being is more than one person. I simply cannot conceive it! It is meaningless nonsense until someone like yourself can make sense out of it for me. It's like trying to imagine that one person can be three beings. It is an incongruent notion. |
It is only incongruent given that you haven't full understanding of reality. Can you not see that the very same claim can be applied to most every act and attribute of God?
One could claim (as you do) that they don't even know what it could possible mean to exist outside of time or to have a life prior to being born as an infant in a manger. They simply cannot conceive it! They could claim it is meaningless nonsense and an incongruent notion.
But they could not reject it as illogical or false until they first prove that it is such. They could claim how they do not understand it or cannot conceive of it, but they cannot claim that it is outright impossible unless they first prove it is impossible...
If you were simply attempting to understand the supernatural or extraordinary, then I would help you along. Or at least I would try to help you understand (I don't have a full understanding of the supernatural myself). But if you maintain that it is false based upon this misunderstanding, then you are no different than the fools who claimed it was impossible for the earth to revolve around the sun based upon them being unable to conceive of such...
_________________
simul justus et peccator
the Protestant pub |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
apocatastasis
King of the Jungle
Joined: 15 Feb 2004
Posts: 1827
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 12:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Soyst, sofyst, sofyst....
Let's keep things terse so that we can cut to the chase.
Please define 'being' in the context that you are using the word. What does it mean to say that God is three persons in one Being?
C'mon, you can do it!
_________________
"Overcome anger by love. Overcome evil by good. Overcome the miser by giving. Overcome the liar by truth." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sofyst
Tiger
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 830
Location: Tejas
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 12:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
They share an existence. Without all three, the being of 'Yahweh' would not be.
_________________
simul justus et peccator
the Protestant pub |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
apocatastasis
King of the Jungle
Joined: 15 Feb 2004
Posts: 1827
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 5:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What sort of existence do they share? Let's get more specific. I suppose in a vague and abstract sense, all things in the universe share the same existence. So what exactly do you mean, my friend?
_________________
"Overcome anger by love. Overcome evil by good. Overcome the miser by giving. Overcome the liar by truth." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sofyst
Tiger
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 830
Location: Tejas
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 5:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
They share an independent existence. All things in the universe share an existence as they are all dependent upon each other, and ultimately upon God for this existence. But God's existence, shared by these three persons, is completely independent.
_________________
simul justus et peccator
the Protestant pub |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
apocatastasis
King of the Jungle
Joined: 15 Feb 2004
Posts: 1827
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 6:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | They share an independent existence. All things in the universe share an existence as they are all dependent upon each other, and ultimately upon God for this existence. But God's existence, shared by these three persons, is completely independent. |
Are the Persons dependent upon their shared existence?
_________________
"Overcome anger by love. Overcome evil by good. Overcome the miser by giving. Overcome the liar by truth." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sofyst
Tiger
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 830
Location: Tejas
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 6:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
God (by this I mean all three of the persons) is dependent upon Himself to exist.
_________________
simul justus et peccator
the Protestant pub |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
apocatastasis
King of the Jungle
Joined: 15 Feb 2004
Posts: 1827
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 7:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | God (by this I mean all three of the persons) is dependent upon Himself to exist. |
Himself? You mean themselves?
_________________
"Overcome anger by love. Overcome evil by good. Overcome the miser by giving. Overcome the liar by truth." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sofyst
Tiger
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 830
Location: Tejas
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 9:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Whichever, the Scripture uses both.
_________________
simul justus et peccator
the Protestant pub |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
