Is God a Trinity? Does one God exist in three Persons?

Jawadiahmad

I kind of disagree with christian belief system. Several questions
Number 1:In What are they distinct and in what are they the same?

Number 2: which one is the Almighty God? Because clearly three of them are distinct from each other and if there's 3 Almighty God then there are no Almighty God.

Number 3:Is Jesus God? Because according to Hosea 11:9 God is not a man, He is also not the son of man according to Numbers 23:19 and he has full knowledge of anything according to Psalms 1:47. If he is, is there any biblical evidence?

Number 4:Can God take the attribute of a man and become a mortal? Because according to Malechi 3:6 He doesn't change.

YeshuaBought

@Jawadiahmad Jesus claimed to be God, are you up for a debate? I have evidence besides this video.

Jawadiahmad

Masya Allah. I've been looking for the evidence everywhere. I think I'm not a good researcher. Let's proceed.

GwynneMa

God frequently refers to himself in the plural in the old testament.  I also always thought Genesis 18 was proof of the trinity, but someone tells me that it was probably God and two angels.

Genesis 1:26 – “Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.’”

GwynneMa

Jawadiahmad said:

I kind of disagree with christian belief system. Several questions
Number 1:In What are they distinct and in what are they the same?

Number 2: which one is the Almighty God? Because clearly three of them are distinct from each other and if there's 3 Almighty God then there are no Almighty God.

Water exists as a fluid, a gas, and a solid.  Clearly they are distinct from each other. Which one is water?  
God the father is our father the creator and all powerful
God the son is our savior Jesus
The holy spirit is more difficult and I cannot say exactly what he is.  But I am  convinced I have experienced him in my life on several occasions.  He is the force of God, Gods action.

Jawadiahmad

GwynneMa said:

God frequently refers to himself in the plural in the old testament.  I also always thought Genesis 18 was proof of the trinity, but someone tells me that it was probably God and two angels.

Genesis 1:26 – “Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.’”

Is that true? Because in Hebrew Genesis 1:1 the first word is "בָּרָ֣א"(Bara') and this word is singular. If there's a singular verb before the noun(In this case, Bara' before Elohim), then the next word become a singular. Same thing with Genesis 1:26. The word before אֱלֹהִ֔ים(Elohim) is וַיֹּ֣אמֶר(Way yo mer) which is singlular. 

Jawadiahmad

GwynneMa said:

Jawadiahmad said:

I kind of disagree with christian belief system. Several questions
Number 1:In What are they distinct and in what are they the same?

Number 2: which one is the Almighty God? Because clearly three of them are distinct from each other and if there's 3 Almighty God then there are no Almighty God.

Water exists as a fluid, a gas, and a solid.  Clearly they are distinct from each other. Which one is water?  
God the father is our father the creator and all powerful
God the son is our savior Jesus
The holy spirit is more difficult and I cannot say exactly what he is.  But I am  convinced I have experienced him in my life on several occasions.  He is the force of God, Gods action.

So by that logic, when God became flesh, there's no God anymore. The analogy is when you put a glass of water inside a freezer and it fully became an ice. The question now is that is there still a glass of water in the freezer? No.Because the water already change into an ice,fully. Let's repeat the analogy one more time. If you boil a water and let all the water change into a gas, is there still a water left? No. Because the water already change into a gas. This is the point that I personally want to ask. In what are they the same? Because according to the fact,you can't have a distinction between them without applying a fully distinction principal(means they are truly separate) and you can't have a similarities without applying a fully similarities principal(means they are truly one which is one being and one person).
And you may answer the 3rd and 4th question if you wish to.

GwynneMa

 I am no linguist and cannot speak to plural or singular of Hebrew text.  
But what word are you speaking of in 1:1?  Because God does not refer to himself in 1:1
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Jawadiahmad

@GwynneMa If you read the hebrew text of Genesis 1:1, you will find the word "בָּרָ֣א"(Bara') before the word  אֱלֹהִ֔ים(Elohim) and the word Bara' is singular. I didn't implies that god refer to himself. I implying that this sentence refer to God as one true being and not plural. But in the logic when you believe that a book is the word of God, if something in the book is referring to God then technically God refer to himself.

GwynneMa

But we see God as one being.  He is water.  Ice is water, fluid water is water, water vapor is water.  So in the bible, when God refers to himself, the pronoun used is sometimes plural and sometimes singular.  But God is always (i believe) referred to as one.
I do not speak of the Gods of the trinity I speak of God.  If I am speaking of one being of God I name him, God the Father, God the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Jawadiahmad

@GwynneMa So by that statement Jesus is The Father?

YeshuaBought

@Jawadiahmad Never fear, my dear. I have this video, which takes you through all of the relevant Scriptures: 

GwynneMa

@Jawadiahmad
No.  Is vapor, Ice?  Is vapor a fluid? No the are all water, they are all God.

GwynneMa

@Jawadiahmad
No analogy is perfect.  But if water is boiled and become vapor, it is still at its atomic level water.  
What makes them the same is they are all God.  
Your 3rd and 4th questions go beyond my Catechism, so I cannot speak on them.  I do have a group I can go to and ask, full of theologians and priests.  But that will take time

Jawadiahmad

GwynneMa said:

@Jawadiahmad
No.  Is vapor, Ice?  Is vapor a fluid? No the are all water, they are all God.

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but that statement just implies that three person in the godhead are 3 separate God. And to be more clear about what I'm looking for, I'm going to repeat and add an information to my question. In What are they distinct and in what are they the same? Because if you concluded that there are 3 person in one being, then when Jesus became a mortal, there are no more God because God has humble himself and take the human form. But if you conclude that they are God even though they're separate and independent, then you need to admit that you have 3 Gods now. If there's any other explanation then please do explain it to me.

Dr_Maybe

YeshuaBought said:

God is three but one according to 1 John 5:7, Christians believe that one God exist in three Persons, all coequal.

If god is three persons that would mean that Jesus got his own mother pregnant in an incestuous relationship with Marry who also happens to be one of his own children.

Dr_Maybe

Did I kill this thread or something? I'll remove my post if you guys think what I said should not be in this thread.

Dr_Maybe

Double posted, sorry!

GwynneMa

No not at all.  Your questions made me ask my Catholic group who gave me tons of material to go through, then life got me distracted.  
The quick answer I gleaned was that any simplified answer I give is considered heresy, so while the water answer makes sense to me, it is considered heresy.
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/explaining-the-trinity
"Each of the three persons in the godhead possesses the same eternal and infinite divine nature; thus, they are the one, true God in essence or nature, not “three Gods.” Yet, they are truly distinct in their relations to each other."
So what makes them the same is they possess the same divine nature.
They are distinct in that they are separate beings.   The Son proceeds from the Father.  The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son.  
John 1:1 explains the Father and Son by calling the Son the word:
1In the beginning2 was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.a 2He was in the beginning with God.
John 1:14
14And the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us, and we saw his glory, the glory as of the Father’s only Son, full of grace and truth.

The Father beget the son through word.  He actively and eternally generates the Son.  The Father and Son, spiritate the Holy Spirit (which mean beget but different)
 
So probably jumping into heresy again but my take away is the Father created the Son with his word, the Son continues and exists because the word is continued.   The Father and Son love each other and their creation so much the Holy Spirit was created.  The three make God.

ethang5

Anyone notice that "God" is not the name of a person?

God is an office. Similar in function to "president", but as the say, no analogy is perfect.

God has a name, or rather, has names. There are 3 persons who hold the office of God, but there is only one God. 

The three persons of the Godhead  are one in essence, but distinct in function.

Dr_Maybe

GwynneMa said:

No not at all.  Your questions made me ask my Catholic group who gave me tons of material to go through, then life got me distracted.  
The quick answer I gleaned was that any simplified answer I give is considered heresy, so while the water answer makes sense to me, it is considered heresy.
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/explaining-the-trinity
"Each of the three persons in the godhead possesses the same eternal and infinite divine nature; thus, they are the one, true God in essence or nature, not “three Gods.” Yet, they are truly distinct in their relations to each other."
So what makes them the same is they possess the same divine nature.
They are distinct in that they are separate beings.   The Son proceeds from the Father.  The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son.  
John 1:1 explains the Father and Son by calling the Son the word:
1In the beginning2 was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.a 2He was in the beginning with God.
John 1:14
14And the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us, and we saw his glory, the glory as of the Father’s only Son, full of grace and truth.

The Father beget the son through word.  He actively and eternally generates the Son.  The Father and Son, spiritate the Holy Spirit (which mean beget but different)
 
So probably jumping into heresy again but my take away is the Father created the Son with his word, the Son continues and exists because the word is continued.   The Father and Son love each other and their creation so much the Holy Spirit was created.  The three make God.

I still think the trinity smacks of polytheism. It tries to solve the problem arising from Jesus in an obvious attempt to escape logic, reason and troubling questions. The trinity is just stuff made up by people, it's not real.

You said, “so while the water answer makes sense to me, it is considered heresy.” and, “So probably jumping into heresy”. This is something I have been thinking about lately. People put stuff out in public on the internet about their own personal beliefs all the time. Very little of it would have been approved of by the church during the dark ages. During the dark ages what you believe was restricted to the church's interpretation and varying from that would get you killed.

When religion was stripped of its authority it changed religion forever, now it's free to evolve.

MayCaesar

I like the Greek pantheon better. It states that all the gods are essentially manifestations of various human traits. So, in a way, all the gods put together form a coherent whole, while individually representing integral parts of the whole. 

In a way, different Greek gods fighting each other and plotting against each other represent different sides of the human character struggling for dominance. Just as a human is whole, and, at the same time, self-contradictory (we can both love and hate at the same time, be greedy and be altruistic at the same time, etc.), the gods form a whole, but contradict each other.

The Christian concept of trinity seems quite a bit less interesting from the philosophical perspective.

Dr_Maybe

MayCaesar said:

I like the Greek pantheon better. It states that all the gods are essentially manifestations of various human traits. So, in a way, all the gods put together form a coherent whole, while individually representing integral parts of the whole. 

In a way, different Greek gods fighting each other and plotting against each other represent different sides of the human character struggling for dominance. Just as a human is whole, and, at the same time, self-contradictory (we can both love and hate at the same time, be greedy and be altruistic at the same time, etc.), the gods form a whole, but contradict each other.

The Christian concept of trinity seems quite a bit less interesting from the philosophical perspective.

As I sat having my Raisin Bran this morning looking at the Sun with a smiling face on the box I had a thought: I wonder if the idea of god or gods is connected to anthropomorphism?

GwynneMa

@Dr_Maybe
Religion evolving is the reason we have so many Protestant churches.  Not really a good thing. (I do admit that many founding protestants had valid complaints)
I doubt there is anything that can convince you of the trinity.  Many people have been moved to a conversion inti Christianity, but they do not start with the Trinity.

Aranea

@YeshuaBought The Christian god is absolutely impossible because of this:
If god creates the universe, then there is a sequence of prior creation --> creation --> post creation. Since god couldn't avoid engaging in this sequence principle, that means this sequence principle is higher than god, making god inherently a lesser thing and thus negating god as god at all.

mickyg

no where does jesusgod say the holy ghost is god..

mickyg

if jesus was god...why did he NOT KNOW when the end would come?@GwynneMa

Sand

Jesus is an angel. God is one and only one.

mickyg

what religion is this?@Sand

Sand

It is what the bible says.

I have spoke to many Trinitarians who use this Alpha and Omega scripture to prove Jesus is the Alpha and Omega. They say this because the statement afterwards in Revelation 22:16 “I Jesus”. Nevertheless who is speaking? If you look back at verse 8, John falls to worship a Angel, who corrects him and directs him to worship God. Notice verse 10, “He also tells me” indicating he was still speaking, and this Angel finishes the remaining statements. So it is the Angel who says “I Jesus”! How could this be when Jesus is clearly worshiped on other occasions? Jesus no doubt can accept worship in connection to the Father, but not directly to himself, because he is not God. As he says here he is a fellow servant. This is proof that Jesus is an Angel. There is another indication that Jesus is an Angel, one of his titles mentioned there is the bright Mourning Star, Mourning Stars are Angels in Job 38:7.

mickyg

you are correct......jesus is not god...there is no eyewitness account of him on earth...
I LOVE JOB...god admits satan outsmarted him..
@Sand

Sand

The names of the disciples are in the Bible. These are the eyewitnesses.

Read your Bible.....

Mark 3:16-18, "And Simon he surnamed Peter; And James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and he surnamed them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder: And Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Canaanite," - KJV

@mickyg

mickyg

prove someone named mark wrote mark@Sand

AlofRI

"GOD" is one, just as Zeus, Mars, Odin and Sun Ra. Jesus, IMO, was one MAN, allegedly a good man. I'll stick with that until I see proof to the contrary. Proof to the contrary does not include a book written by men, in the form of a myth.

mickyg

is this gonna take long??????????//
PROVE who wrote mark.
@Sand

TKDB

@AlofRI

"Proof to the contrary does not include a book written by men, in the form of a myth."

Where is your individual evidence, that a book written about God, or Jesus, by men, is a myth?

Maybe your individual perception, or opinion, is where individual evidence, is being derived from? 

Have you reached out to God's PR manager, and they told you exclusively that God doesn't exist, thus cooberating, your individual perception? 

And this is maybe what you're, basing your individual opinion off of?

I've been to a Catholic, Baptist, and an all denominations church, with babies, kids, teenagers, parents of various ages, and senior citizens, attending the services.

And these same religious individuals are serving their communities, via the homeless, and with natural disasters like Hurricanes, and tornadoes, and food banks.

So it would appear to me, that these religious individuals, and their congregations, are helping out, and benefitting their communities?

So a book written about God, and Jesus, are doing good things through the fellowship of their churches, and through the fellowship of their communities across the country? 

That's what I see, in this modern day and age, in regards to religion in general, when some of the negative influencer minded individuals, that are on the internet, aren't able to negatively influence some, with their anti religious rhetoric?

AlofRI

I have nothing against anyone's religion or belief. You believe what you want, I'll believe what I want (or not). I was just expressing my "opinion". I know the Bible was written (cobbled together) by The Emperor Constantine, originally. He used translations of ancient languages from centuries old stone tablets and Papyrus scrolls, etc. It has been translated to different languages many times. A translation is prone to mistakes, especially from ancient languages and damaged scrolls etc.. I believe it is a myth. a very inaccurate one. You certainly can believe as you wish … with MY best wishes. 
I have nothing to prove, you have nothing you CAN prove.

TKDB

@AlofRI

"All very learned people, likely smarter than you or I. I happen to agree with them, with some reservation on the last one. It's not an "individual mindset". MANY people of high intellect …. "hold these truths to be self evident", as do I."

Did you ask the writer of these words:
 ("hold these truths to be self evident") if you could utilize their words to make your individual opinionated point of view with?

And, I should remember as well, that the people that you utilized, to help make your points of view with, are likely smarter than you or I?

You can talk like that about them if you want, but you're not me, and I would appreciate you not lumping me in with your apparent fascination over them? 

And you are entitled to your individual opinion.

And I see, how you framed your individual opinion, through your very specific choice of words, to further enhance your individual opinion? 

And I view your individual opinion, as just that, as another, and apparent, anti religious individual, using the internet, to platform your individual anti religious, opinionated opinion with? 

"I have nothing to prove, you have nothing you can prove."

Wrong, if you weren't trying to PROVE anything, you wouldn't, be on the internet, and trying to use it as a platform device, to attempt to get your individual opinions across, now would you?

The anti religious, are the very individuals, who have educated me, without fail, through their variously applied, anti religious points of view, or rhetoric filled statements.

And the below is my proof, that none of the Nationwide news media, isn't judging God, Jesus, or Religion, as some on the internet have been doing for quite a few years now.

But, if you, or anyone else can provide real life legitimate evidence to the contrary, I would be happy to see, a viable link, to a Nationwide news media outlet source, that has judged God, Jesus, or Religion, like some on the internet have, and are doing currently?

(So until the Nationwide media is judging religion as you appear to be doing?

And they are judging God, Jesus, or Religion, for having been found guilty, right along with the criminals, and the offenders, for humans having murdered humans, or a human, having sexually assaulted another human being, or if God, Jesus, is OK, with some humans participating with abortions?)

I might consider your varied, individual opinions then, but until then, sadly I can't. 

AlofRI

First of all, those words I used belong to America, IMO. Secondly, I'm not "lumping you" with anything or anyone. I'm just giving my opinion in an opinion site. Most people use "a specific choice of words to enhance their opinion". What's the sense of expressing one without the right choice of words?? Thirdly, I am NOT anti-religious, I am anti-religious CONTROL. I have NO objection to anyone BEING religious, I object to anyone forcing their beliefs, through laws or pressure, onto others. Believe what you want, keep it to yourself or others that have an interest, and don't denigrate or fight someone ELSE'S religion. THAT is the point I was making. THAT would be "judging religion".

I was trying to show that many people, intelligent people, see religions as: ... "sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician and ridiculous to the philosopher."  (Lucretius) (around 50 years before Jesus). Things still haven't changed. That doesn't mean I am against someone following a religion, I'm NOT, and I respect your opinion. I just feel, as James Madison did. "Religious bondage shackles the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise, every expanded prospect." (AND it starts WARS!)  If you think it will help … PRAY!  I tried it a few times …. found I was talking to myself.

Plaffelvohfen

No, he's a quintet: Pasta, sauce, cheese, baguette and wine...  May you be touched by his noodly appendages, ramen!

TKDB

@AlofRI

"I object to anyone forcing their beliefs, through laws or pressure, onto others. Believe what you want, keep it to yourself or others that have an interest, and don't denigrate or fight someone ELSE'S religion. THAT is the point I was making. THAT would be "judging religion".

Where have you physically witnessed someone forcing their beliefs through laws or pressure, onto others? 

"Thirdly, I am NOT anti-religious, I am anti-religious CONTROL."

Tell me something, when people have gone to church of their own free will, are you maybe suggesting, that the act of going to church, could maybe be viewed as "religious CONTROL?

I'm curious, what kind of control are you maybe alluding to?

Mind control, brain washing, or some kind of other control methods? 

I'm trying to understand, the psychology behind your statement? 

From you to me:

"First of all, those words I used belong to America, IMO. Secondly, I'm not "lumping you" with anything or anyone. I'm just giving my opinion in an opinion site. Most people use "a specific choice of words to enhance their opinion". What's the sense of expressing one without the right choice of words?? Thirdly, I am NOT anti-religious, I am anti-religious CONTROL. I have NO objection to anyone BEING religious, I object to anyone forcing their beliefs, through laws or pressure, onto others. Believe what you want, keep it to yourself or others that have an interest, and don't denigrate or fight someone ELSE'S religion. THAT is the point I was making. THAT would be "judging religion".

I was trying to show that many people, intelligent people, see religions as: ... "sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician and ridiculous to the philosopher."  (Lucretius) (around 50 years before Jesus). Things still haven't changed. That doesn't mean I am against someone following a religion, I'm NOT, and I respect your opinion. I just feel, as James Madison did. "Religious bondage shackles the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise, every expanded prospect." (AND it starts WARS!)  If you think it will help … PRAY!  I tried it a few times …. found I was talking to myself."

Prayer is prayer, it's not mandatory. Because babies are going to be babies, just as kids, are going to be kids, and then you have their parents, attending to them while a church service is ongoing.

And Mr. Madison is entitled to his own opinion as well.

"Religious bondage shackles the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise, every expanded prospect."

And with the church's that I've been to, I've yet to witness the presence of the "shackles of Religious bondage" anywhere in plain sight, to be used to shackle ones own mind with? 

Or witnessed anyone, being made unfit for any (noble enterprise, or any expanded prospect?)

But I think I can understand, why you shared his qoutes, maybe to help you make your individual points of view with? 

So tell me, who in your view, educated humanity on WAR, (like killing another with a rock, a stick, a club,) long before Religion showed up?

Basically, some humans can act like an animal, can't they? 

Proof to that: Serial killers, the crimes of sexual assault, and rape, the mass murderers who have killed kids, parents, and senior citizens, domestic violence and abuse, and murder/ suicides?

Criminal warfare against the public as a whole.

You can blame religion with all the self justification that you can.

(But it still, doesn't make your point.)

I blame some of the humans, who act like animals on their own accord.

Here's the comment that you made before:

"I have nothing to prove, you have nothing you can prove."

And I noticed that you didn't verbally go near it? 

Wrong, if you weren't trying to PROVE anything, you wouldn't, be on the internet, and trying to use it as a platform device, to attempt to get your individual opinions across, now would you?

The anti religious, are the very individuals, who have educated me, without fail, through their variously applied, anti religious points of view, or rhetoric filled statements.

And the below is my proof, that none of the Nationwide news media, isn't judging God, Jesus, or Religion, as some on the internet have been doing for quite a few years now.

But, if you, or anyone else can provide real life legitimate evidence to the contrary, I would be happy to see, a viable link, to a Nationwide news media outlet source, that has judged God, Jesus, or Religion, like some on the internet have, and are doing currently?

(So until the Nationwide media is judging religion as you appear to be doing?

And they are judging God, Jesus, or Religion, for having been found guilty, right along with the criminals, and the offenders, for humans having murdered humans, or a human, having sexually assaulted another human being, or if God, Jesus, is OK, with some humans participating with abortions?)

I might consider your varied, individual opinions then, but until then, sadly I can't.  

AlofRI

There is a lot of "forcing beliefs" going on. I'll just list a few books here that show, to anyone willing to read, or listen, what is happening.
(These books available on Amazon)
American Fascists; (The Christian Right and the War on America)
The Family; ( The Secret fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power)
Liars for Jesus; ( The Right Wings Alternative Version of American History)
Religious Right; (The Greatest Threat to Democracy)

I'm for The Bill of Rights and the Constitution. I'm for the First Amendment. We HAVE to remember that, as John Adams pointed out at the Treaty of Tripoli: "The Government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian Religion." (OR, any other religion). That was for a reason. As another founder, James Madison, pointed out:  "The purpose of the Separation of church and state is to keep, forever from these shores, the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries." The founding fathers knew that THEY, had to form the laws of the land based on human reasoning, NOT the Bible. When we "swear in" , to an elected or appointed office we swear to uphold the Constitution, not the Bible. It is also just as legal to swear ON the Constitution rather than the Bible, as T. Roosevelt AND, I believe it was John Adams that did, also. The books above show, (and one can see it if they allow themselves to), that certain groups of Evangelicals and other religions, are trying to rewrite the Constitution to more closely (strictly) follow the Bible against the wishes and plans OF the founders. THAT would make U.S. not unlike the middle east authoritarian countries and open the doors to "soaking the soil" as Madison predicted. Bible against Qur'an will never cease, one HAS to give up their "god". Most will die first.

Another document, the Declaration of Independence, is carefully crafted to NOT mention any particular "god". It mentions "the Natural God" and "THEIR Creator", leaving BOTH open to interpretation by individuals or religions. I, and most other Americans want to keep it that way. Worship any "god" you wish, but, don't try to run The United States WITH it!

I forget which founding father said this (if anyone knows please tell me): "I don't care about theology unless it threatens our freedom, then I care about it in the way I care about Rabies or Typhoid!" I feel the same. Hold your religion as close as you wish, live by it, all fine. Just keep it out of my government. The nation wide media should NOT be judging any religion, I agree. FOX DOES judge Islam. Keep it as required by the Constitution and they won't, I'm sure. I am NOT judging religion, I am just objecting to the (un-Constitutional) misuse of it. 

TKDB

@AlofRI

"I forget which founding father said this (if anyone knows please tell me): "I don't care about theology unless it threatens our freedom, then I care about it in the way I care about Rabies or Typhoid!" I feel the same. Hold your religion as close as you wish, live by it, all fine. Just keep it out of my government. The nation wide media should NOT be judging any religion, I agree. FOX DOES judge Islam. Keep it as required by the Constitution and they won't, I'm sure. I am NOT judging religion, I am just objecting to the (un-Constitutional) misuse of it."

"I don't care about theology unless it threatens our freedom, Hold your religion as close as you wish, live by it, all fine. Just keep it out of my government."

Who gave you the impression that religion is maybe trying to threaten freedom? 

And keep religion, out of your government?

I'm sorry, but I wasn't aware that the U.S. government, belonged to you solely? 

AlofRI

Nobody "gave me the impression", I simply pay attention. This government does not belong to me "solely", but it DOES belong to me as much as you. My point is, it does NOT belong to one religion, AND, the founding fathers made that clear. Some are trying to change that. I do NOT want MY portion of the government changed to the rules of a religion I do not support. I "support" them ALL, to the extent that they have a right to exist in America, an equal right since our inception, and I have an equal right to not be a part of any of them.
If you would read one of the books I recommended, with an open mind, I think you would see the danger. I recommend the last one, written by a person who was a part of the conspiracy, until he opened his eyes. Maybe then you'd see that the government should belong to U.S., with or without the dots.

TKDB

@AlofRI

Its funny how, I've yet to see anyone protesting some books on Religion, that are on a book shelf, at say a Barnes and Noble, a Books A Million, or at a truck stop somewhere, because they are maybe loosely viewed as dangerous, by this or that individual? 

Because for a while now, I've made it a habit to go to these sections in those book stores, to witness for myself a probable protester, protesting the Religious literature, as it quietly sits on a shelf, and can be voluntarily read by anyone, with an open mind? 

Because I believe, that some humans have been more dangerous to other humans, for centuries now, before the concepts of the written word, or Religion ever came into being? 

Right or wrong? 

AlofRI

The books I posted are NOT books against religion. I am not "against religion" as I've said many times. They are books against people USING religion to overthrow America's "Freedom of Religion" by making U.S. a "single religion country". This is, and has always been, a recipe for war … in Gods name … of course, because the other countries have a "Phony god" … according to Christians. If WE don't back one specific "god" that's one less reason to fight U.S.

Are those "some humans have been more dangerous to other humans for centuries" actually only different religions?? If so, that's exactly WHY I listed those books! Christians have NO claim to a "peaceful religion" over other Abrahamic religions. They are responsible for the deaths of millions of "humans, for centuries". 
"No nations are more warlike than those who profess Christianity" *Pierre Bayle* 

"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example off the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has produced, the CROSS. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!" *John Adams* (In a letter to Thomas Jefferson)

"RIGHT".  Those dangerous humans have, by a large majority, been "humans" that were against another's religion, viciously. I am NOT against anyone's religion, I'm against the USE of it to run (ruin?) a country … or the world.

Sand

Here is the proof.

The trinity cannot not stand by Reference.

Here is the rule, you cannot refer to a part of something and the whole at the same time. To do so would indicate that the part is not connected to the whole.

If Jesus is the part of the whole then every reference to the whole is a reference to the part. So if Jesus ever reference God, he is speaking about himself in the third person. Nevertheless, when Jesus reference the whole and the part at the same time, it indicates that he is not God.

Lets look at your examples:

Past Present and Future are all components of time.

Height Width Depth are all facets of Space.

Solid Liquid and Gas are all states of Matter.

 

So it would be illogical to state, “This affects time, and the Future”, or “This affects Space, and Height”, or “This affects Matter, and Liquid”. These statements indicate that Future is not a component of time, or Height of Space, or Liquid of Matter. It would be comparable to saying, “The person sold me a car and a transmission.” The word “and” means “in addition to”. So it is with the understanding that the car is the whole that includes a transmission in it. To place “and” in the statement would indicate an additional transmission. If the transmission was a part of the car, there would be no need to mention the transmission. Jesus is constantly referred apart from the totality of God, thus the conclusion can be made that Jesus is not God. John 17:3; 1 Thessalonians 1:1; 2 Thessalonians 1:1

 

 

Unless the statement is referencing the same entity, then “and” could be used to refer to two terms that apply to the same entity or whole. For example, ‘your automobile and car’, both titles referring to the same entity or item. You cannot say ‘your automobile and transmission’ because that would not reference title, but whole and part. Then that means God is not a totality and Jesus is not a part. I think that argues against the conclusion that God consists of three separate entities who together is God. It would mean that God is Jesus and these are just different titles. So then it should be possible to switch the terms.

 

Switching the Terms

Switching terms should always be possible on one entity. Everywhere in the Bible I should be able to place the title “Father” in place of the title “God” and get the same meaning. Whenever you are not able to do so, logic indicates it is not the same entity. You cannot switch the terms with Jesus and God on all instances. Is Jesus the Father? Did Jesus resurrect God?

 

There is no instance that Past Present and Future are not considered time, or Height Width Depth are not considered Space, or Solid Liquid and Gas are not considered Matter.

But your understanding of God?

Did God die for your sins?

Did Jesus die for your sins?

Did Holy Spirit die for your sins?

This should be the same statement, since three are one. - 1 Peter 3:18; Hebrews 9:28

Is Jesus good?

Is God good?

Is Holy Spirit good?

According to Jesus “only” the Father is good. - Mark 10:17, 18

Is the son the only begotten?

Is the father the only begotten?

Is the holy spirit the only begotten?

According to the scriptures the son is the “only begotten”. - John 3:16-18

If you sin against the father will it be forgiven?

If you sin against the son will it be forgiven?

If you sin against the holy spirit will it be forgiven?

Matthew 12:31, 32

 

These terms cannot be switched. This is another indication that Jesus is not God. When someone “is” another person, everything must line up. Any small distortion indicates they are someone else. Example: There could be two John Smiths. Both could be Fathers, Both could be Sons, Both could be Teachers. Both could be one person. But as soon as I say that only one could walk. It indicates that they are not the same. The word “only” destroys continuity especially when comparing someone of who is considered to be one entity in totality. The  word “only” is applied many times to God by Jesus excluding himself. By doing that he is indicating he is not God at all. If someone or something has more power, authority, or knowledge than you could you be considered the highest being? Jesus many times indicates this of God in comparison to himself.

Sand

So Jesus is an angel. He is referenced as a Son. All sons in the Bible are created beings with a beginning. There is too many scriptures that reference Jesus being an angel.

billbatard

how many angels can dance on the head of a pin

Sand

@billbatard ;

Angels have non-corporeal bodies (spiritual) so an infinite number can dance on the head of a pin.

Nevertheless, because Angels are in the spiritual realm, physics such as matter and space may not apply to them.

 

Of course if you are witting that statement to indicate how useless this discussion is.

Then I would ask why are you reading it? Why are you taking part in it?

You become a victim of your own words.