Announcement

Collapse

Message to all users:

https://carm.org/forum-rules

Super Member Subscription
https://carm.org/carm-super-members-banner-ad-signup

As most of you are aware, we had a crash to forums and were down for over two days a while back. We did have to do an upgrade to the vbulletin software to fix the forums and that has created changes, VB no longer provide the hybrid or threaded forums. There are some issues/changes to the forums we are not able to fix or change. Also note the link address change, please let friends and posters know of the changed link to the forums. For now this is the only link available, https://forums.carm.org/vb5/ but if clicking on forum on carm.org homepage it will now send you to this link. (edited to add https: now working.

Again, we are working through some of the posting and viewing issues to learn how to post with the changes, you will have to check and test the different features, icons that have changed. You may also want to go to profile settings,since many of the notifications, information in profile, also to update/edit your avatar by clicking on avatar space, pull down arrow next to login for user settings.

Edit to add "How to read forums, to make it easier."
Pull down arrow next to login name upper right select profile, or user settings when page opens to profile,select link in tab that says Account. Then select/choose options, go down to Conversation Detail Options, Select Display mode Posts, NOT Activity, that selection of Posts will make the pages of discussions go to last post on last page rather than out of order that happens if you choose activity threads. Then be sure to go to bottom and select SAVE Changes in your profile options. You can then follow discussions by going through the pages, to the last page having latest responses. Then click on the other links Privacy, Notifications, to select viewing options,the forums get easier if you open all the tabs or links in your profile, user settings and select options. To join Super Member, pull down arrow next to login name, select User Settings and then click on tab/link at top that says Subscriptions.

Thank you for your patience and God Bless.

Diane S
https://carm.org/forum-rules
See more
See less

the trinity violates deductive logic.

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Presentist View Post
    Your limit on the definition of the word God is utterly irrelevant to how the word God is used in English.
    Try looking in a dictionary. That alone should express the complexity you refuse to interact with.
    Ok, I looked in a dictionary... have you???
    The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines the word "God" (capitalized) as "the supreme or ultimate reality".
    That is a good definition, but I personally prefer to define the word "God" as "the one who transcends all creations" to emphasize that God is a sentient being who has created everything else.
    With the standard dictionary definition, an Atheist could call the singularity (which is simply matter) God since they think it is the ultimate reality.
    So what are YOUR multiple definitions for the word "God"?
    And what dictionary were you referring to that has so many definitions for the word "God" (capitalized)?
    Yes, it seems that Merrian-Webster's Dictionary defines God/god in four different ways. You do realize that this is an abridged dictionary. An unabridged dictionary would include ever possible use in English. In the Greek NT, God is used in 5 primary ways with 10 subcategories according to BADG. In theology, all of these uses are interacted with including possibly more. Simply ignoring all other uses isn't a valid position.

    God Bless

    Comment


    • Originally posted by DoctrinesofGraceBapt View Post

      My view doesn't include "That only in the collective (all three) Do they have the same numerical identity as the one God".


      Well, other trins here hold the trinity (one Being existing as three persons) is the numerical identity of the one God revealed in scriptures. Do you agree or Disagree?

      And if so, how is that not a collective of all three persons?

      and several trins here reject the notion that each person individually is numerically the one God. I disagree on that.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Presentist View Post
        Your point is?
        I was just trying to get you to confirm these two statements...
        "The Father has something that exists."
        "The Father is not something that exists."
        I do not agree with those statements. So I wanted you to confirm that you do.
        So a simple "Yes I agree with those statements" is all that I am looking for.
        I don't agree with those statements either. Moving on.

        P.S.
        You define "a being" as "something that exists".
        You say "The Father has a being", which would mean "The Father has something that exists".
        And you say "The Father is not a being", which would mean "The Father is not something that exists".
        Has in my comment "The Father has a being" is not being used the way you are using it in "The Father has something that exists".
        In my comment, "The Father is not a being" is defining what the tag "the Father" refers to. That's all. Applying the transitive properity to language like this while ignoring the meaning being communicated in the original statement is an easy way to confused yourself.


        God Bless

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Gumby View Post
          This whole vs part dichotomy simply doesn't apply to the situation of the persons of God and the Godhead.
          Why not if the persons are not wholly God?
          I didn't say the persons are not wholly God. I said no to the positive affirmation "Can you claim a person of the godhead is the whole God?" I think you missed my previous point: This whole vs part dichotomy simply doesn't apply to the situation of the persons of God and the Godhead.

          Comment


          • If God were a single indivisible and numerically one Spirit would there be a debate on the whole vs part?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Simpletruther View Post
              My view doesn't include "That only in the collective (all three) Do they have the same numerical identity as the one God".
              Well, other trins here hold the trinity (one Being existing as three persons) is the numerical identity of the one God revealed in scriptures. Do you agree or Disagree?
              Okay, I must be better theologically trained than they are. The real problem is all the category errors in your comments. The Trinity is either the collection of the three persons, or the doctrine of such. The trinity is not identically the one Being existing as three persons; it is the three persons. The one Being existing as three persons is identically the one God revealed in Scripture. Do you see your error? The being is distinct from the person/collection of persons. You and your being are not numerically identical. If I am talking about your person, I saying different things than if I am talking about your being. Same thing for the Trinity and the being of God.

              And if so, how is that not a collective of all three persons?
              I believe your confusion was answered above.

              and several trins here reject the notion that each person individually is numerically the one God. I disagree on that.
              That's because you reject the Trinity wholesale.

              God Bless

              Comment


              • Originally posted by DoctrinesofGraceBapt View Post

                Okay, I must be better theologically trained than they are. The real problem is all the category errors in your comments. The Trinity is either the collection of the three persons, or the doctrine of such. The trinity is not identically the one Being existing as three persons; it is the three persons. The one Being existing as three persons is identically the one God revealed in Scripture. Do you see your error? The being is distinct from the person/collection of persons. You and your being are not numerically identical. If I am talking about your person, I saying different things than if I am talking about your being. Same thing for the Trinity and the being of God.
                if the one true God’s numerical identity is “one Being existing as three persons”,

                How is that not describing a collective of the persons?



                I believe your confusion was answered above.



                That's because you reject the Trinity wholesale.

                God Bless
                It is you that rejects the trinity wholesale. As evidenced that you deny each person individually is the one God of the Bible.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by oldshepherd View Post
                  I am not interested in your unsupported opinion of BDAG or any other source I cite.
                  And I am not interested in you ignoring the facts as stated in favor of appeals to extra-bibilcal sources.


                  So I guess we're done. Nice chatting with you.
                  All verses cited or quoted or in the NAS unless otherwise noted.

                  “if anyone competes as an athlete, he does not win the prize unless he competes according to the rules.” (2 Tim. 2:5)

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Apostolic1ness View Post
                    Another word for ideology is "doctrine".
                    No, that is incorrect. Dogma maybe, not doctrine.
                    All verses cited or quoted or in the NAS unless otherwise noted.

                    “if anyone competes as an athlete, he does not win the prize unless he competes according to the rules.” (2 Tim. 2:5)

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Apostolic1ness View Post

                      you are correct.. There are three Gods in the trinitarian model depending on how they explain their theology.
                      1. 3"separate persons"
                      2. 3 "separate wills"
                      3. 3 "separate individuals"
                      4. "distinct persons"
                      5. 1 "who" 3 "whats"
                      6. 3 in 1
                      7. eternally begotten son
                      8. eternal son

                      depends on what they believe. many options out there.
                      Here is an option
                      Jesus is the son of God
                      the spirit is the spirit of God
                      It follows that The father is the father of God
                      The father is the father of Jesus therefore Jesus is God

                      This will be the Trinity teaching from here on out you can't argue with that logic...

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by newbirth View Post
                        Here is an option
                        Jesus is the son of God
                        the spirit is the spirit of God
                        It follows that The father is the father of God
                        The father is the father of Jesus therefore Jesus is God

                        This will be the Trinity teaching from here on out you can't argue with that logic...
                        Yes, Jesus is The Son of God.
                        Yes, The Spirit is The Spirit of God.
                        NO, God has NO Father. Strawman.
                        Correct. Jesus is God.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Josheb View Post
                          And I am not interested in you ignoring the facts as stated in favor of appeals to extra-bibilcal sources.
                          So I guess we're done. Nice chatting with you
                          .
                          A lexicon is not an extra biblical source. Anonymous posters on discussions with no stated or demonstrated expertise in the Biblical languages do not determine what is or is not a credible source in biblical discussions. Were you to actually consult BDAG you might become aware of the many historical and lexical sources the scholars consulted in determining the meaning of words The scholars who compiled the lexicon did not sit down and eeny, meeny, mine mo make up meanings for words. I am always wary of folks who claim they know more than the peer reviewed scholars.
                          When I have a medical problem I don't get medical advice from anonymous posters online. I go to a doctor who has studied at accredited schools, who has been peer reviewed, licensed etc. Why should I do any less when it comes to matters of faith?
                          And OBTW your withdrawing will not prevent me from pointing out your errors.
                          C.U.L.T.S. =Contentious Unscriptural Later Theological Systems.

                          ". . . Christ Jesus is shown to be Lord and God, which the heretics will not have." A Treatise Of Novatian Concerning The Trinity [A.D. 210-280]

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by oldshepherd View Post
                            A lexicon is not an extra biblical source.
                            Is a lexicon the Bible?

                            All verses cited or quoted or in the NAS unless otherwise noted.

                            “if anyone competes as an athlete, he does not win the prize unless he competes according to the rules.” (2 Tim. 2:5)

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by DoctrinesofGraceBapt View Post

                              I didn't say the persons are not wholly God. I said no to the positive affirmation "Can you claim a person of the godhead is the whole God?" I think you missed my previous point: This whole vs part dichotomy simply doesn't apply to the situation of the persons of God and the Godhead.
                              Was the son wholly in the body of Jesus?
                              Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself. Leo Tolstoy

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Gumby View Post
                                Was the son wholly in the body of Jesus?
                                The Son IS Jesus.
                                In the body of Jesus???Incomprehensible question.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X