Trinity.

[darinhouston]

I think you're mis-interpreting the doctrine, though I'm not that familiar with all its subtleties. I understand its most famous proponent was Thomas Aquinas. At its core, I believe, is the notion that God is not a complex being/entity composed of other things, and that while He has attributes, they aren't some "other" thing and aren't dividible as unique things. I think the idea is that what we know as attrributes are just what God "IS". It wouldn't deny the attributes, but denies their independence from Him (I think). In addition to attributes, however, the postulation goes further that He has no genuine distinctions in other respects such as in relations, which begs the question of how you can square this notion with a true trinitarian idea of independent persons. If this is from Aquinas, I think he would certainly see God as personal (not some impersonal singularity), but not in a way that has divisions within Himself who relate to one another. Just because we can't see God as "being love" without having someone "other" to love doesn't mean it isn't true.

[darinhouston]

Has anyone here explored the doctrine of Divine Simplicity?

Read about it, but it is not well regarded by such as John S. Feinberg, William Lane Craig, and Alvin Plantinga.

I read some of Craig's criticisms. It made my head hurt, but then again so do the arguments in support of the Trinity if I try to understand them.

[Paidion]

I think the idea is that what we know as attrributes are just what God "IS". It wouldn't deny the attributes, but denies their independence from Him (I think)

Hmmm... If that's what "simplicity" is, wouldn't it apply to us human beings as well? For example, A human father may be loving and caring . Those are attributes, but are they not also what that father IS?

[jriccitelli]

"... but then again so do the arguments in support of the Trinity if I try to understand them" (Darin)
Three beings perfectly united in love, so as to be One God. This is scriptural, and this is easy for me to understand. The only alternative is to make Jesus another god or another divine being or idol who is equal to God. Which one do you choose?

[Paidion]

Three beings perfectly united in love, so as to be One God.

Would three human beings perfectly united in love be one God? Or maybe one Human?

The only alternative is to make Jesus another god or another divine being or idol who is equal to God. Which one do you choose?

I choose to recognize Jesus as the writers of the New Testament reveal Him—not as the only true God (Jesus called his Father "the only true God", John 17:3)— but as the only-begotten Son of God (John 3:18) and as the only-begotten God (John 1:18).

[jriccitelli]

Would three human beings perfectly united in love be one God? Or maybe one Human?

Three humans would be one in spirit, becoming one physically would be hard unless they could actually their atoms together.
Two persons can still be two persons even though they are one in spirit (and scripture says man and woman do become one, I reckon)
Christianity holds that men 'never' become God, never equal to God, and that God is Holy self existent and uncreated.

I choose to recognize Jesus as the writers of the New Testament reveal Him—not as the only true God

Paidion, you have a ton of other scriptures to reconcile with John 17:3 (including the first of the Commandments).
I and the Father are One / when he looks at me he sees the One who sent me / Trust in God trust also in me / “Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? / If you love Me, you will keep My commandments / all will honor the Son even as they honor the Father / “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me, and you have John himself explaining: 'He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God' (John 5:18)
You can't have someone showing up and claiming equality with God, unless they 'actually' are equal with God, and since God has no equal, Jesus and the father would have to share in this Godhead. If Jesus is not God then he is an imposter. You are saying Jesus is not-God yet equal to God, scripture does not allow for that.

[jriccitelli]

And then they use God in one other mysterious way. They say, for example, "Jesus is God but God is not Jesus," which seems to mean that there's more to God than Jesus alone. (Paidion)

A yolk is both, a yolk is part of the egg, and it is egg, but it is not the whole egg.
Jesus is both, Jesus is part of the God and Jesus is God, but Jesus is not the whole God.
A better example is lemonade, Steve’s example. They combine into what is ‘God’.

So in this statement, they seem to be using "God" in the second instance to mean "The Trinity". But clearly they are not using "God" in the first instance to mean "The Trinity", for they don't claim that Jesus is the Trinity. So how ARE they using it in the first instance? (Paidion)

Lemonade has three basic ingredients: Sugar, water, lemons, Lemonade is what they are together. The Sugar Water and Lemon can still have identity with the mixture, and Lemonade is not Lemonade with the ingredients. We also know that the ingredients are not the same and that they can talk to one another.

It is easily conceptualized, draw a circle, write above the circle ‘God’ write ‘in the circle’ Father, Son, Holy Spirit. There you go, no more confusion. As I speak my wife is listening to Joyce Meyer on the internet, and as I was writing (even JM could explain it in one minute) she just side barred and explained the Trinity as such: God is three persons, God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit. The three together comprise the One God.

Do they mean that Jesus is part of God? Or do they mean that He is "God stuff", id est "the essence of God"? (Paidion)

No Trinitarian definition that I know of would say Jesus is God stuff, God is God, and that is the nature of each person in The God. Proposition 1: God is God and everything else is not God.

[darinhouston]

'He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God' (John 5:18)
You can't have someone showing up and claiming equality with God, unless they 'actually' are equal with God, and since God has no equal, Jesus and the father would have to share in this Godhead. If Jesus is not God then he is an imposter. You are saying Jesus is not-God yet equal to God, scripture does not allow for that.

jriccitelli, do you believe this passage tells us that Jesus was claiming He was equal with God? Or just that calling God His Father was seen by them as making Himself equal with God? If the former, please explain.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[jriccitelli]

Hello Darin, I was only referring to Jesus ‘calling God his Father God' (not the miracle).
Jesus continues to talk about his relationship to the Father: all will honor the Son even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him / You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me, and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life’
Do you know any man, or being that could truthfully make all these claims, and assume such assurance with God?
Certainly not within Judaism.
You have to put yourself in the place of a scripture believing God fearing Hebrew Jew. Jesus came to His own, those under the Law of Moses, they knew the precepts of the Law and the Prophets. Every other god or divine being was a false notion or idol. Any commitment to another, worship of another, equating of another, or even mentioning the name of other gods or false idols was abhorred and condemned, this had been stressed to the nth degree.

[Paidion]

JR, you are repeating the same old arguments instead of properly addressing my position. You are also stating the same old mantra:

God is three persons, God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit.

I challenge you to find a single instance in Scripture of the phrase "God the Son" or "God the Holy Spirit". It's simply not there. It's a figment of the Trinitarian imagination—something they would LIKE to find in scripture in order to justify the Trinitarian concept that was invented long ago and maintained by tradition.

If God is three persons, then why do we never find the word "God" in scripture used in reference to a compound three-personed being? Why do we find that in over 90% of cases, the word "God" is used of the Father alone?

I might point out also that Jesus has a God. "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me". There are other references also to Jesus' God. So if Jesus is God, does God have a God?