[W: #795] [W: #1002] The Trinity

[AConcernedCitizen]

Your lack of understanding or applying sound reasoning on what has already been posted is duly noted...

Your inability to address why anyone would have trouble addressing the fact that Jesus did not know everything the Father knew is duly noted.

You post snark instead of arguments, because you have no arguments.

 

[Overitall]

Don't confuse, particularly when you're baiting, walking away from a pointless discussion with running away with tail tucked. Sometimes, it's better to abandon exercises in futility.

Bingo!

 

[Daisy]

Daisy said:
Deception is not in Jehovah God's or Jesus Christ's vocabulary

versus biblical scripture

2 Thessalonians 2:11​

And for this cause God shall send them strong ---> "delusion", that they should believe a ---> "lie."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

de·lu·sion​

/dəˈlo͞oZH(ə)n/​

noun

• 1.a false belief or judgment about external reality, held despite incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, occurring especially in mental conditions:"he began to experience hallucinations, delusions, anxiety, and agitation along with dizziness and nausea"Similarmisapprehension, mistaken impression, false impression, mistaken belief, misconception, ... more
• -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

lie​

/lī/​

noun

• 1.the way, direction, or position in which something lies:"he was familiarizing himself with the lie of the streets"

Swwwwoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooossssssssssssssssssssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhh...

 

[Daisy]

Your inability to address why anyone would have trouble addressing the fact that Jesus did not know everything the Father knew is duly noted.

You post snark instead of arguments, because you have no arguments.

Sorry, I refuse to match wits with the unarmed...it's a waste of time...

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

Bingo!

If you had an argument to back up your assertion, you would make it.

You post only pettiness, because pettiness is all you have.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

Sorry, I refuse to match wits with the unarmed...it's a waste of time...

Plenty of time for insults though, I see.

If you had an actual argument, you would make it. You post only insults, because insults are all you have.

 

[Daisy]

What Influenced It

THROUGHOUT the ancient world, as far back as Babylonia, the worship of pagan gods grouped in threes, or triads, was common. That influence was also prevalent in Egypt, Greece, and Rome in the centuries before, during, and after Christ. And after the death of the apostles, such pagan beliefs began to invade Christianity.

Historian Will Durant observed: “Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it. . . . From Egypt came the ideas of a divine trinity.” And in the book Egyptian Religion, Siegfried Morenz notes: “The trinity was a major preoccupation of Egyptian theologians . . . Three gods are combined and treated as a single being, addressed in the singular. In this way the spiritual force of Egyptian religion shows a direct link with Christian theology.”

Thus, in Alexandria, Egypt, churchmen of the late third and early fourth centuries, such as Athanasius, reflected this influence as they formulated ideas that led to the Trinity. Their own influence spread, so that Morenz considers “Alexandrian theology as the intermediary between the Egyptian religious heritage and Christianity.”

In the preface to Edward Gibbon’s History of Christianity, we read: “If Paganism was conquered by Christianity, it is equally true that Christianity was corrupted by Paganism. The pure Deism of the first Christians . . . was changed, by the Church of Rome, into the incomprehensible dogma of the trinity. Many of the pagan tenets, invented by the Egyptians and idealized by Plato, were retained as being worthy of belief.”

A Dictionary of Religious Knowledge notes that many say that the Trinity “is a corruption borrowed from the heathen religions, and ingrafted on the Christian faith.” And The Paganism in Our Christianity declares: “The origin of the [Trinity] is entirely pagan.”

That is why, in the Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics, James Hastings wrote: “In Indian religion, e.g., we meet with the trinitarian group of Brahmā, Siva, and Viṣṇu; and in Egyptian religion with the trinitarian group of Osiris, Isis, and Horus . . . Nor is it only in historical religions that we find God viewed as a Trinity. One recalls in particular the Neo-Platonic view of the Supreme or Ultimate Reality,” which is “triadically represented.”
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101989303

 

[tosca1]

But it is because this is the theology forum, not the skeptics forum...

@AConcernedCitizen
@Overitall

Yes, this is Theology forum.
However, the author of this thread wants a dialogue.


AConcernedcitizen's question to you is a response to your argument.
Even though she is a non-believer, her question is relevant.

 

[tosca1]

What Influenced It

THROUGHOUT the ancient world, as far back as Babylonia, the worship of pagan gods grouped in threes, or triads, was common. That influence was also prevalent in Egypt, Greece, and Rome in the centuries before, during, and after Christ. And after the death of the apostles, such pagan beliefs began to invade Christianity.

Historian Will Durant observed: “Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it. . . . From Egypt came the ideas of a divine trinity.” And in the book Egyptian Religion, Siegfried Morenz notes: “The trinity was a major preoccupation of Egyptian theologians . . . Three gods are combined and treated as a single being, addressed in the singular. In this way the spiritual force of Egyptian religion shows a direct link with Christian theology.”

Thus, in Alexandria, Egypt, churchmen of the late third and early fourth centuries, such as Athanasius, reflected this influence as they formulated ideas that led to the Trinity. Their own influence spread, so that Morenz considers “Alexandrian theology as the intermediary between the Egyptian religious heritage and Christianity.”

In the preface to Edward Gibbon’s History of Christianity, we read: “If Paganism was conquered by Christianity, it is equally true that Christianity was corrupted by Paganism. The pure Deism of the first Christians . . . was changed, by the Church of Rome, into the incomprehensible dogma of the trinity. Many of the pagan tenets, invented by the Egyptians and idealized by Plato, were retained as being worthy of belief.”

A Dictionary of Religious Knowledge notes that many say that the Trinity “is a corruption borrowed from the heathen religions, and ingrafted on the Christian faith.” And The Paganism in Our Christianity declares: “The origin of the [Trinity] is entirely pagan.”

That is why, in the Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics, James Hastings wrote: “In Indian religion, e.g., we meet with the trinitarian group of Brahmā, Siva, and Viṣṇu; and in Egyptian religion with the trinitarian group of Osiris, Isis, and Horus . . . Nor is it only in historical religions that we find God viewed as a Trinity. One recalls in particular the Neo-Platonic view of the Supreme or Ultimate Reality,” which is “triadically represented.”
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101989303

@AConcernedCitizen
@Overitall



That there had been other referrals to a Triune GOD (although they are from different cultures and different religions) - wouldn't the same reasoning for it apply, as to why there are many differing narratives of global floods
from different cultures and different religions?


Could it be possible that those pagan cultures/religions had simply been corrupted by EVIL - thus, they ended up having a............................. "similar" representation of a triune god that isn't YAHWEH?
In other words, I'm saying the pagan's "triune god" could've been the REVISED EVIL VERSION.

If Israelites have been easily swayed into having idols (even after they have had DIRECT contact with YAHWEH) - why couldn't the same thing happen to other ancient peoples of this world?




We do know that all mankind had been hardwired to worship GOD.
Thus, the default mechanism for people (even those of primitive tribes) was to worship a deity when they feel helpless before something they perceive as powerful - like a volcano.

As I've said before - how do we know GOD had never tried to make Himself known to other ancient peoples that preceded the Israelites?
That, because they got misled, and instead had created their own idols - that perhaps, that was the reason GOD gave us the Bible.
To set the record straight.



We do know for a fact that these beliefs are shared by mankind though they differ in their ways and narratives:

Creation
Worship
Global flood
and basing it from your argument - the triune GOD.



Believe it or not - those actually prove YAHWEH...................................... and, the concept of the TRINITY!

 

[tosca1]

Sorry, I refuse to match wits with the unarmed...it's a waste of time...

@AConcernedCitizen
@Overitall



Whom are you kidding?

She gave a reasonable rebutting question to your argument
The least you could do is explain what she's gotten wrong........................if, you can.

 

[tosca1]

And yet another proof of humans having free will...

Jehovah God allows “an operation of error” to go to persons who prefer falsehood “that they may get to believing the lie”

@AConcernedCitizen
@Overitall


Could we say that ancient peoples which preceded Abraham had really "preferred falsehood?"
Can we say that they knew what they believed, was false?


Correct me if I'm wrong - but the miraculous evidence for the GOD of ABRAHAM was shown by GOD with events concerning Israel.
Therefore - it could have been only after evidence for the GOD of ABRAHAM had been shown, that we can say pagans, "prefer believing the falsehood of their gods."

 

[tosca1]

Bingo!

@AConcernedCitizen
@Daisy


Walking away -

It can go vice-versa too.

Sometimes, one walks away because he cannot give a reasonable answer or rebuttal.

 

[Overitall]

What Influenced It

THROUGHOUT the ancient world, as far back as Babylonia, the worship of pagan gods grouped in threes, or triads, was common. That influence was also prevalent in Egypt, Greece, and Rome in the centuries before, during, and after Christ. And after the death of the apostles, such pagan beliefs began to invade Christianity.

Historian Will Durant observed: “Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it. . . . From Egypt came the ideas of a divine trinity.” And in the book Egyptian Religion, Siegfried Morenz notes: “The trinity was a major preoccupation of Egyptian theologians . . . Three gods are combined and treated as a single being, addressed in the singular. In this way the spiritual force of Egyptian religion shows a direct link with Christian theology.”

Thus, in Alexandria, Egypt, churchmen of the late third and early fourth centuries, such as Athanasius, reflected this influence as they formulated ideas that led to the Trinity. Their own influence spread, so that Morenz considers “Alexandrian theology as the intermediary between the Egyptian religious heritage and Christianity.”

In the preface to Edward Gibbon’s History of Christianity, we read: “If Paganism was conquered by Christianity, it is equally true that Christianity was corrupted by Paganism. The pure Deism of the first Christians . . . was changed, by the Church of Rome, into the incomprehensible dogma of the trinity. Many of the pagan tenets, invented by the Egyptians and idealized by Plato, were retained as being worthy of belief.”

A Dictionary of Religious Knowledge notes that many say that the Trinity “is a corruption borrowed from the heathen religions, and ingrafted on the Christian faith.” And The Paganism in Our Christianity declares: “The origin of the [Trinity] is entirely pagan.”

That is why, in the Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics, James Hastings wrote: “In Indian religion, e.g., we meet with the trinitarian group of Brahmā, Siva, and Viṣṇu; and in Egyptian religion with the trinitarian group of Osiris, Isis, and Horus . . . Nor is it only in historical religions that we find God viewed as a Trinity. One recalls in particular the Neo-Platonic view of the Supreme or Ultimate Reality,” which is “triadically represented.”
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101989303

Historical evidence, as to the origin of the Trinity, only confirms our pov. As converts from other religions gained prominence in Christianity their former dogmas took it over. The Trinity was just one tradition that took hold.

 

[Overitall]

<snip>

The non-parable answer is that there is no reason Jesus would know all the things the Father knows if He was God. That is just a baseless assertion that @Overitall made, with no reasoning behind it. Jesus can be God, and His Father can also be God, and Jesus can submit to the authority of the Father, and not know all the things that the Father knows, and it actually doesn't present any logical issues.


<snip>

What you should compare it to is what can be observed in the real world. Jesus cannot be his father anymore than you can be your father. You and your father can be united in purpose, but that doesn't make you one and the same in substance. You can only share dna, but maintain a separate and distinct identity.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

What you should compare it to is what can be observed in the real world. Jesus cannot be his father anymore than you can be your father.

You misunderstand the Trinity doctrine. Jesus is not His Father in the Trinity doctrine. Similarly, steam is not ice, The Return of the King movie is not the Return of the King novel, and the Elden Ring client is not the Elden Ring server,

You and your father can be united in purpose, but that doesn't make you one and the same in substance. You can only share dna, but maintain a separate and distinct identity.

Are you contending that Jesus and His Father share DNA? That the Father is a creature born of flesh and blood, with His identity tied to His physical form?

Why would you imagine an all-powerful deity to be limited in the same way that my father and I are? There is no reason at all to think that a deity who can raise the dead back to life can't also instantiate His identity across multiple aspects.

 

[Overitall]

You misunderstand the Trinity doctrine. Jesus is not His Father in the Trinity doctrine. Similarly, steam is not ice, The Return of the King movie is not the Return of the King novel, and the Elden Ring client is not the Elden Ring server,



Are you contending that Jesus and His Father share DNA?

Of course not. I was making a comparison in which two separate entities can share characteristics. Those shared characteristics don't make them one and the same.

That the Father is a creature born of flesh and blood, with His identity tied to His physical form?

You have no scriptural basis for this.

Why would you imagine an all-powerful deity to be limited in the same way that my father and I are?

Why would you imagine He would come into human form through the pregnancy of a woman, when it could have been easier to create it out of the dust of the earth like He did with Adam?

There is no reason at all to think that a deity who can raise the dead back to life can't also instantiate His identity across multiple aspects.

There's plenty of scriptures which presents a contrary conclusion.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

Of course not. I was making a comparison in which two separate entities can share characteristics. Those shared characteristics don't make them one and the same.

Sometimes two things with separate identities share characteristics, and sometimes one thing with a single identity has separate aspects that don't share characteristics.

Giving an example of two separate entities sharing characteristics does nothing to indicate that Jesus would have to know everything His Father knows in order to be God.

You have no scriptural basis for this.

You mean that you have no scriptural basis for it. You are the one asserting that the relationship between Jesus and His Father is comparable to any other paternal relationship based on shared DNA.

Why would you imagine He would come into human form through the pregnancy of a woman, when it could have been easier to create it out of the dust of the earth like He did with Adam?

Why would that be easier? If it was easier, why did He make Eve out of one of Adam's ribs instead of making her out of the dust of the Earth? Why did He order the Israelites to kill all the little Amalekite infants instead of turning them all into pillars of salt Himself? What do you hope to achieve by speculating on God's motives?

There's plenty of scriptures which presents a contrary conclusion.

Which chapter and verse asserts that Jesus has to know everything His Father knows in order to be God?

 

[Overitall]

Sometimes two things with separate identities share characteristics, and sometimes one thing with a single identity has separate aspects that don't share characteristics.

Giving an example of two separate entities sharing characteristics does nothing to indicate that Jesus would have to know everything His Father knows in order to be God.




You mean that you have no scriptural basis for it. You are the one asserting that the relationship between Jesus and His Father is comparable to any other paternal relationship based on shared DNA.



Why would that be easier? If it was easier, why did He make Eve out of one of Adam's ribs instead of making her out of the dust of the Earth? Why did He order the Israelites to kill all the little Amalekite infants instead of turning them all into pillars of salt Himself? What do you hope to achieve by speculating on God's motives?



Which chapter and verse asserts that Jesus has to know everything His Father knows in order to be God?

The fact that Jesus states there are things that even he doesn't know clearly indicates he can't be God. For that to be the case God would have to wipe out of His mind certain bits of knowledge.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

The fact that Jesus states there are things that even he doesn't know clearly indicates he can't be God.

It indicates no such thing.

Water in its vapor form can expand to fill the volume of any container it is placed in. The fact that liquid water cannot do that does not "clearly indicate" that it isn't water. Water in its liquid form is still water, even though it can't expand to fill the volume of any container it is placed in.

For that to be the case God would have to wipe out of His mind certain bits of knowledge.

You have no basis for that assertion.

Instantiating Himself in human form would naturally result in some hardware limitations, but would not fundamentally change His identity.

 

[Overitall]

It indicates no such thing.

Water in its vapor form can expand to fill the volume of any container it is placed in. The fact that liquid water cannot do that does not "clearly indicate" that it isn't water. Water in its liquid form is still water, even though it can't expand to fill the volume of any container it is placed in.



You have no basis for that assertion.

Instantiating Himself in human form would naturally result in some hardware limitations, but would not fundamentally change His identity.

You're speculating. You're avoiding certain points I raised. For what purpose would God limit what memories/knowledge Jesus would have?

 

[Logician Man]

The fact that Jesus states there are things that even he doesn't know clearly indicates he can't be God. For that to be the case God would have to wipe out of His mind certain bits of knowledge.

Gordy327 said:
What is "omniscience in the past?" God is either omniscient or he is not. Omniscience is not selective.


@Daisy/Elora said:
Do you not think an all powerful God has the ability to control His own attributes?

Gordy327 said:
Is God omniscient or not?

@Daisy/Elora said:
Yes, He is also all powerful so Jehovah has absolute freedom to do as He pleases...

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

You're speculating.

What is it that you think I am speculating about?

You're avoiding certain points I raised.

Which points?

For what purpose would God limit what memories/knowledge Jesus would have?

Why ask me to speculate about God's purpose right after accusing me of speculating?

 

[Overitall]

Gordy327 said:
What is "omniscience in the past?" God is either omniscient or he is not. Omniscience is not selective.


@Daisy/Elora said:
Do you not think an all powerful God has the ability to control His own attributes?

Make a point or quit tagging me.

 

[Overitall]

What is it that you think I am speculating about?



Which points?



Why ask me to speculate about God's purpose right after accusing me of speculating?

Enjoy the rest of your day. (Read my siggy).

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

Enjoy the rest of your day. (Read my siggy).

You did the thing! I was hoping you would do the thing.

The better part of valour and all that. No shame in it.