The Trinity problem

Author: Shila
trinity
three in one

Posts

Total: 26
Topic's author
#1
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,137
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
Why is the Trinity hard to explain?
The doctrine of the Trinity poses a deep and difficult problem. On the one hand, it says that there are three distinct persons— Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—and that each of these persons “is God.” On the other hand, it says that there is one and only one God. So it appears to involve a contradiction.

The Trinity
Christians believe that God is a Trinity of Persons, each omnipotent, omniscient and wholly benevolent, co-equal and fully divine. There are not three gods, however, but one God in three Persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Prima facie, the doctrine more commonly known as the Trinity seems gratuitous: why multiply divine beings beyond necessity—especially since one God is hard enough to believe in? For Christians, however, the Trinity doctrine is neither gratuitous nor unmotivated. Claims about Christ’s divinity are difficult to reconcile with the Christian doctrine that there is just one God: Trinitarian theology is an attempt to square the Christian conviction that Jesus is the Son of God, fully divine yet distinct from his Father, with the Christian commitment to monotheism. Nevertheless, while the Trinity doctrine purports to solve a range of theological puzzles it poses a number of intriguing logical difficulties akin to those suggested by the identity of spatio-temporal objects through time and across worlds, puzzle cases of personal identity, and problems of identity and constitution. Philosophical discussions of the Trinity have suggested solutions to the Trinity puzzle comparable to solutions proposed to these classic identity puzzles. When it comes to the Trinity puzzle, however, one must determine whether such solutions accord with theological constraints.

Topic's author
#2
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,137
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
Catholic view on the Trinity.
"Now this is the Catholic faith: We worship one God in the Trinity and the Trinity in unity, without either confusing the persons or dividing the substance; for the person of the Father is one, the Son's is another, the Holy Spirit's another; but the Godhead of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is one, their glory ...

St. Thomas Aquinas begins his teaching on the Trinity by asserting that "God is Father, God is Son, and God is Holy Spirit," and that these are not three but one God. Further, God's Word is also part of his existence.

What Shila posted about the Trinity.

For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit. But the Godhead of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is all one. … So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God.

1 John 5:7
There are three in heaven who prove it is true. They are the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit. These three are one.

God is a spirit, he appears to us as the Holy Spirit. But the two are one. God also came to earth as Jesus.

John 1:In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning.
John 1:14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

So god is a spirit, he appears to us as the Holy Spirit, he also appeared to us as Jesus. But the three are one.

Note the three concepts are the same.

Topic's author
#3
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,137
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
Theological Constraints
a. Monotheism
Christians claim to be monotheists and yet, given the doctrine of the Trinity, hold that there are three beings who are fully divine, viz. God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The first Trinity puzzle is that of explaining how we can attribute full divinity to the Persons of the Trinity without either compromising monotheism or undermining claims about the distinctness of Trinitarian persons.
Orthodox accounts of the Trinity hover uneasily between Sabellianism—which construes Trinitarian Persons as mere phases, aspects or offices of one God—and tri-theism, according to which the Persons are three Gods. Tri-theism is unacceptable since it is incompatible with the historical Christian commitment to monotheism inherited from the Hebrew tradition.
The fundamental problem for Trinitarian orthodoxy is to develop a doctrine of the Trinity that fits in the space between Sabellianism (or other versions of Monarchianism) and tri-theism. For Social Trinitarians in particular the problem has been one of articulating an account of the Trinity that affirms the individuality of the Persons and their relationships with one another without lapsing into tri-theism.

Nicea opened the discussion of the “theology” of the Trinity, understood as the exploration of the relations amongst Persons—the “immanent Trinity” as distinct from the “economic Trinity,” that is the Trinity understood in terms of the distinct roles of the Persons in their worldly activities, in creation, redemption and sanctification. Nicea cashed out the homoousios claim by noting that the Son was “begotten, not made” indicating that he was, as noted in a parallel formula then current, “out of the Father’s ousia.” Furthermore, the Holy Spirit was declared at Constantinople to have the same sort of ontological status as the Son. So in the Fourth Century, at the Councils of Nicea and Constantinople, and through the work of the Cappadocians, the agenda for Trinitarian theology was set and the boundaries of orthodoxy were marked.
Within these parameters, the Trinity doctrine poses problems of three sorts: first, theological problems in reconciling theological doctrines concerning the character and properties of God with Trinitarian claims; secondly, theological puzzles that arise from Christological claims in particular; and finally logical puzzles posed by the Trinity doctrine itself. It remains to be seen whether it is possible to formulate a coherent doctrine of the Trinity within the constraints of Christian orthodoxy.
Topic's author
#4
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,137
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
There is only one God

If each Person of the Trinity is distinct and yet fully God, then should we conclude that there is more than one God? Obviously we cannot, for Scripture is clear that there is only one God: “There is no other God besides me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none besides me. Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other” (Isaiah 45:21-22; see also 44:6-8; Exodus 15:11; Deuteronomy 4:35; 6:4-5; 32:39; 1 Samuel 2:2; 1 Kings 8:60).

Having seen that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are distinct Persons, that they are each fully God, and that there is nonetheless only one God, we must conclude that all three Persons are the same God. In other words, there is one God who exists as three distinct Persons.

If there is one passage which most clearly brings all of this together, it is Matthew 28:19: “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.” First, notice that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinguished as distinct Persons. We baptize into the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Second, notice that each Person must be deity because they are all placed on the same level. In fact, would Jesus have us baptize in the name of a mere creature? Surely not. Therefore each of the Persons into whose name we are to be baptized must be deity.

Third, notice that although the three divine Persons are distinct, we are baptized into their name (singular), not names (plural). The three Persons are distinct, yet only constitute one name. This can only be if they share one essence.

Topic's author
#5
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,137
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
St Thomas Aquinas sees the same sameness in the Trinity.

Aquinas says that the alleged consequence would follow only if the persons were the same both in thing and in concept. But they are not; they are merely the same thing.
This move is puzzling. Aquinas holds that the three are not merely similar or derived from the same source, but are in some strong sense the same, but not identical (i.e. numerically the same) which he appears to understand as sameness in both thing and concept. Even this last is surprising; one would think that for Aquinas “sameness in thing” just is identity, and that “sameness in concept” would mean that we apply the same concept to some apparent things (whether or not they are in fact one or many). Christopher Hughes holds that Aquinas is simply confused, his desire for orthodoxy having led him into this (and other) necessary falsehoods. On Hughes’s reading, Aquinas does think of “sameness in thing” as identity, but he incoherently holds it to be non-transitive (i.e. if A and B are identical, and B and C are identical, it doesn’t follow that A and C are identical), while in some contexts assuming (correctly) that it is transitive (Hughes 1989, 217–40).

Topic's author
#6
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,137
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
The Distinctness of Persons
Historically, Monarchianism—in particular Modalism (or Sabellianism), the doctrine that the Persons are “modes,” aspects, or roles of God—has been more tempting to Christians than tri-theism. The fundamental problem orthodox Latin Trinitarians face is that of maintaining a distinction between Trinitarian Persons sufficient to avoid Sabellianism, since orthodox Christians hold that the Persons of the Trinity are not merely aspects of God or God under different descriptions but in some sense distinct individuals such that Father ≠ Son ≠ Holy Spirit.
Christians hold that there are properties that distinguish the Persons. First, there are intra–Trinitarian relational properties the Persons have in virtue of their relations to other Trinitarian Persons: the Father begets the Son, but the Son does not beget the Son; the Spirit proceeds from the Father (and the Son) but neither the Father nor the Son proceeds from the Father (and the Son). Secondly, the Persons of the Trinity are distinguished in virtue of their distinctive “missions”—their activities in the world. The Second Person of the Trinity becomes incarnate, is born, suffers, dies, is buried, rises from the dead and ascends to the Father. According to orthodox doctrine, however, the same is not true of the Father (or Holy Spirit) and, indeed, the doctrine that the Father became incarnate, suffered and died is the heresy of patripassionism. 
According to Latin Trinitarians, God, the Trinity, is an individual rather than a community of individuals sharing the same divine nature and each Person of the Trinity is that individual. Given this account however, the trick is to block inferences from the ascription of properties characteristic of one Trinitarian Person to the ascription of those properties to other Persons. Moreover, since it is held that the Persons cannot be individuated by their worldly activities, Latin Trinitarians, whose project is to explain the distinctions between Persons, must develop an account of the intra–Trinitarian relations that distinguish them—a project which is at best speculative.
Topic's author
#7
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,137
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
How the Trinity can be proven mathematically.

Trinity and Identity
Can one consistently believe (1) – (7)? It depends on how we read the “is” in (1) – (6). If we read it throughout as the “is” of strict identity, as “=” the answer is no. Identity is an equivalence relation: it is reflexive, symmetric and transitive, which is to say, for all x, y and z the following hold:
Reflexivity:           x = x
Symmetry:            If x = y then y = x
Transitivity:          If x = y and y = z then x = y
In addition, identity is an unrestricted indiscernibilty relation for all properties, which is to say it obeys Leibniz’ Law, understood as the Indiscernibility of Identicals:
LL:                         If x = y then for all properties, P, x has P if and only if y has P
This is bad news. Suppose we read the “is” as “=” in (1) – (6). Then it follows from (1) and (2), by symmetry and transitivity, that the Father is the Son, which contradicts (4). Put another way, given LL, (1) entails that God has all the same properties as the Father, including the property of being identical with the Father insofar as everything has the property of self-identity. (2) says that the Son likewise has all the same properties as God. It follows that, since God has the property of being identical with the Son, the Son also has the property of being identical with the Father, which contradicts (4).
These formal features of identity are non-negotiable in the way that the four-sidedness of squares is: God cannot evade them any more than he can make a square with only three sides. God can make triangles—and pentagons, chiliagons or figures with any number of sides he pleases—but he cannot make such things squares. So, assuming that “God,” “Father,” “Son” and “Holy Spirit” don’t change their reference, the “is” that figures in (1) – (6) cannot be the “is” of strict identity.


Topic's author
#8
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,137
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
Thomas Aquinas' Trinitarian theology has been criticized as proposing an abstract notion of God that is divorced from salvation history and that is supported by tedious and ultimately incomprehensible explication.

Trinity definition provided by the Catholic Church:
The Trinity is One. We do not confess three Gods, but one God in three persons, the “consubstantial Trinity”. The divine persons do not share the one divinity among themselves but each of them is God whole and entire: “The Father is that which the Son is, the Son that which the Father is, the Father and the Son that which the Holy Spirit is, i.e. by nature one God.” In the words of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), “Each of the persons is that supreme reality, viz., the divine substance, essence or nature.”
The divine persons are really distinct from one another. “God is one but not solitary.” “Father”, “Son”, “Holy Spirit” are not simply names designating modalities of the divine being, for they are really distinct from one another: “He is not the Father who is the Son, nor is the Son he who is the Father, nor is the Holy Spirit he who is the Father or the Son.” They are distinct from one another in their relations of origin: “It is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds.” The divine Unity is Triune.

Topic's author
#9
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,137
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
What did Jesus say about the Trinity?
He did not specifically refer to the term Trinity but did describe God in what we would call trinitarian terms or formulations. Jesus described God as "the Father", he described himself as God's son, and one with God the Father, and described the Holy Spirit as somehow proceeding from both the Father and himself.

Jesus went a step further.

John 10:30-38
I and the Father are one.”
31 Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, 32 but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”

John 14:9
Don't you know who I am? If you have seen me, you have seen the Father. How can you ask me to show you the Father? 

The final catch.
John 1:In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.



What does St Thomas Aquinas say about the Trinity?
St. Thomas Aquinas begins his teaching on the Trinity by asserting that "God is Father, God is Son, and God is Holy Spirit," and that these are not three but one God. Further, God's Word is also part of his existence. Aquinas calls speech the offspring of the intellect, which he conceives as its father.


What did St. Augustine write about the Trinity?
Augustine states in regard to their work, “Father does some things, the Son other things, and the Holy Spirit yet others” (Augustine Ch. 5.8). The Holy Spirit is the spirit of both the Father and the Son and was not begotten. Just like the Father and the Son, the Holy Spirit has no beginning or end.

What verse explains the Trinity?
John 14:10
Though there is a complete mutual indwelling of the Father and the Son, the Father and the Son remain distinct persons within the Trinity, as does the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14), and the three of them still constitute only one Being in three persons.

What is the simplest way to explain the Trinity?
There is one God, who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Trinity, or Holy Trinity, is a way of describing God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.
Topic's author
#10
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,137
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
Christology and the Jesus Predicate Problem
The doctrine of the Trinity, as noted earlier, is motivated by the Christian conviction that Jesus was, in some sense, divine. Jesus however was born, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried; he did not understand Chinese; he believed that David was the author of all the Psalms. These properties are, it would seem, incompatible with divinity and, indeed, there appear to be a great many predicates that are true of Jesus which, it would seem, could not be true of God and vice versa.
This is the Jesus Predicate Problem: we do not want to ascribe all the predicates that are true of Jesus to God simpliciter or, in particular, to God the Father. We do not, for example, want to hold that the Father suffered on the Cross—the heresy of Patripassionism. God, as traditionally understood is impassible—he cannot be subject to suffering, pain or harm. Moreover God has no beginning in time or end, and is, according to most orthodox accounts atemporal insofar as he is eternalrather than merely everlasting: he exists outside of time in what is, from the perspective of his subjectivity, the eternal now. Jesus however was born at a particular time and lived his life in time, so to maintain God’s atemporality, we cannot allow predicates that assign temporal properties to Jesus to God, or in particular to God the Father. In general, there are a range of predicates that are true of Jesus that, we want to hold, are not true of God the Father or of the Holy Spirit, and which we would hesitate to ascribe to God simpliciter insofar as they appear to be inconsistent with essential features of divinity.
To avoid the migration of Jesus’ predicates to other Persons of the Trinity, we need to create enough logical space between the Persons to block inferences from claims about Jesus to claims about the Father so that, in general, “Jesus Fs” does not entail “God the Father Fs” where “x Fs” says either that x has a property, is a certain kind of thing or does a certain kind of action. The trouble with Monarchian accounts, which make the Trinity “too tight,” is that they obliterate the logical space between the Persons that would block such inferences. Since Monarchians cannot use Trinitarian doctrine to block these inferences they use Christology to do the job—by either adopting very high Christologies or very low ones.  The wedge has to be driven somewhere and, if there isn’t enough logical space to drive it in between the First and Second Persons of the Trinity, it has to go in between the Second Person, the divine Logos which is from the beginning with God and is God, and whatever it is that is the subject of Jesus predicates.
Topic's author
#11
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,137
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
Historical Background of the Trinity
The current mainstream teaching in Christianity is that God is a coequal, coeternal, one-substance trinity, and that Jesus Christ is God. This doctrine is considered by many as the cornerstone of Christianity, but where did this doctrine come from? The historical record is overwhelming that the church of the first three centuries did not worship God as a coequal, coeternal, consubstantial, one-substance three in one mysterious godhead. The early church worshipped one God and believed in a subordinate Son. The trinity originated with Babylon, and was passed on to most of the world's religions. This polytheistic (believing in more than one god) trinitarianism was intertwined with Greek religion and philosophy and slowly worked its way into Christian thought and creeds some 300 years after Christ. The idea of "God the Son" is Babylonian paganism and mythology that was grafted into Christianity. Worshipping "God the Son" is idolatry, and idolatry is Biblically condemned; it breaks the first great commandment of God of not having any gods before him (Exodus 20:3). Then three centuries after Christ the corrupt emperor Constantine forced the minority opinion of the trinity upon the council of Nicea. The Christian church went downward from there; in fact some of the creeds and councils actually contradict each other. The council of Nicea 325 said that "Jesus Christ is God," the council of Constantinople 381 said that "the Holy Spirit is God," the council of Ephesus 431 said that "human beings are totally depraved," the council of Chalcedon 451 said that "Jesus Christ is both man and God." If you follow the logic here then first you have Jesus Christ as God, then you have man totally depraved, and then you have Jesus Christ as man and God. If Jesus Christ is both man and God does this mean that God is also totally depraved? Well maybe the doctrine of the coequal, coeternal, one-substance, mysterious three in one triune godhead is deprived of any historical foundation tying it into the Christianity of the Bible and the Christianity of the first three centuries. However the historical information ties the trinity into various pagan origins.
And yet most Christian churches continue to teach and believe the doctrine that God is a coequal, coeternal, one-substance, mysterious three in one triune godhead, and that Jesus Christ is God, and that the trinity is "the cornerstone of Christianity".
#12
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 2,174
3
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
3
7
6
-->
@Shila
The early church worshipped one God and believed in a subordinate Son.
I'm not sure this fits the constraints you described any more than the Trinity. And most Trinitarians see the Trinity as describing a divine mystery, rather than an explanation. I haven't seen a more specific and consistent explanation that fits all the verses you described, so "divine mystery" is probably as close as anyone can get if they hold the Bible as authoritative.
Topic's author
#13
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,137
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Savant
The early church worshipped one God and believed in a subordinate Son.
I'm not sure this fits the constraints you described any more than the Trinity. And most Trinitarians see the Trinity as describing a divine mystery, rather than an explanation. I haven't seen a more specific and consistent explanation that fits all the verses you described, so "divine mystery" is probably as close as anyone can get if they hold the Bible as authoritative.
Divine mysteries are spiritual truths that were formerly hidden but are now meant to be understood. Man's mysteries are something else altogether and can be permanently impossible to understand. Scholars declare the trinity is a mystery that is beyond understanding and we agree!

Trinitarians say the doctrine of the Trinity is a mystery, whereas Unitarians say it is not a mystery, but a confusing compilation of tenets introduced by men ..
#14
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 2,174
3
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
3
7
6
-->
@Shila
Unitarians say it is not a mystery, but a confusing compilation of tenets introduced by men
How do unitarians deal with verses like "I and the Father are one"?
Topic's author
#15
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,137
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Savant
Unitarians say it is not a mystery, but a confusing compilation of tenets introduced by men
How do unitarians deal with verses like "I and the Father are one"?

The theological roots of Unitarian Universalism are grounded in two great heresies: the heresy of Universalism (no one is lost forever, all are saved) and the heresy of Unitarianism (there is no biblical support for the idea of a triune God). The word ‘heretic’ comes from the Greek word for ‘choice.’

"Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian (believing in one God). The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching."

The trinity is a deviation from believing in one God; it is a deviation from what the early church taught and it is a deviation from the scripture.

#16
DavidAZZ
DavidAZZ's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 394
2
2
5
DavidAZZ's avatar
DavidAZZ
2
2
5
-->
@Shila
The problem with the Trinity is that the Bible does not support it unless you make up a ton of words and phrases, one being the "Trinity".  If there is one God, then there is one God, not a freakish three in one word salad.

The Bible is very specific about there only being one God.  The issue with Trinitarians is that they refuse to see God as one distinct being and Jesus Christ as the Messiah only.  Since they think there are three persons in God, then they have to twist the scriptures in order to cram their Trinity doctrine to mean what they want.

BTW, the whole Matt 28:19 aspect is revealed in Acts 2:38 where the apostles specifically said to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.  If there is a singular name, which is true, then Jesus would be the only name to use.  Also see Acts 4:12, there is no other name given.  Also, Romans 6 refers to us be baptized into his (Jesus's) death.  If we are baptized into a death, then the Trinitarian baptism (Father Son HG) would mean the other two Gods would have to die too, or that they did die.

Real thing is, Jesus was a vehicle to offer a sacrifice for us by God.  Jesus will not reign forever since he will give his power back to God in the final days of all (1 Cor 15:28) Jesus was never Eternal.  He was born of a woman and any reference to him being "from the beginning" would be in the mind or plan of God.  The Son is only in reference to the flesh or body of Jesus Christ.  
Topic's author
#17
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,137
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@DavidAZZ
Real thing is, Jesus was a vehicle to offer a sacrifice for us by God.  Jesus will not reign forever since he will give his power back to God in the final days of all (1 Cor 15:28) Jesus was never Eternal.  He was born of a woman and any reference to him being "from the beginning" would be in the mind or plan of God.  The Son is only in reference to the flesh or body of Jesus Christ. 

You deviate quite a bit from the Christian view of Jesus.
Who was Jesus according to Christians?
In Christianity, Jesus is the Son of God as chronicled in the Bible's New Testament, and in most Christian denominations he is held to be God the Son, a prosopon (Person) of the Trinity of God. Christians believe him to be the messiah (giving him the title Christ), who was prophesied in the Bible's Old Testament.

Jesus as the Son of God
Most Christians believe that Jesus, as well as being fully human, is also fully God. Most Christians believe that Jesus is the second person of the Holy Trinity. and is the Son of God.

#18
DavidAZZ
DavidAZZ's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 394
2
2
5
DavidAZZ's avatar
DavidAZZ
2
2
5
-->
@Shila
What most Christians believe and what the Bible says are two different things.

I am a Christian by all means, but I do not believe that Jesus was the second person of the Trinity.

In Christianity, Jesus is the Son of God as chronicled in the Bible's New Testament, and in most Christian denominations he is held to be God the Son, a prosopon (Person) of the Trinity of God. Christians believe him to be the messiah (giving him the title Christ), who was prophesied in the Bible's Old Testament.

Jesus as the Son of God
Most Christians believe that Jesus, as well as being fully human, is also fully God. Most Christians believe that Jesus is the second person of the Holy Trinity. and is the Son of God.

Most of what you wrote is completely extra-biblical.  The Bible never calls him "God the Son", but the son of God.  This term "son of God" is used many times for regular men.  The Bible also does not call Jesus as fully God.  He was a man that was indwelt with God's spirit.  So much so that the personality of Jesus was God himself.

BTW, most Christian religions sprang form the Catholic church, therefore they kept the Trinity doctrine, so to say Christians believe in such and such is only to award yourself with your own medal.
Topic's author
#19
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,137
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@DavidAZZ
Most of what you wrote is completely extra-biblical.  The Bible never calls him "God the Son", but the son of God.  This term "son of God" is used many times for regular men.  The Bible also does not call Jesus as fully God.  He was a man that was indwelt with God's spirit.  So much so that the personality of Jesus was God himself.

BTW, most Christian religions sprang form the Catholic church, therefore they kept the Trinity doctrine, so to say Christians believe in such and such is only to award yourself with your own medal.
Where in the Bible does it say God the Son?
The phrase "God the Son" does not appear in the Bible but is found in later Christian writings. It mistakenly appears in a medieval manuscript, MS No. 1985, where Galatians 2:20 has "Son of God" changed to "God the Son"

The Bible says Jesus is unique in both His person and His purpose. He wasn't just some spiritual individual during His time on earth; He was both God's Son (John 3:16) and God Himself—God in human flesh (1 Timothy 3:16). Yes, He was fully man, but He was also fully God (Colossians 2:9).
#20
DavidAZZ
DavidAZZ's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 394
2
2
5
DavidAZZ's avatar
DavidAZZ
2
2
5
-->
@Shila
The Bible says Jesus is unique in both His person and His purpose. He wasn't just some spiritual individual during His time on earth; He was both God's Son (John 3:16) and God Himself—God in human flesh (1 Timothy 3:16). Yes, He was fully man, but He was also fully God (Colossians 2:9).
I agree that Jesus Christ was more than just an ordinary man and that the Bible does explain this, but he was NOT a God. He was not part of God, nor did he originate from the "substance" of God.  He was flesh that contained God's spirit (1 Tim 3:16).  When referencing "God's son", the term is used for the creation of this person by God himself.  Such a term is used on Adam, the first man. So Jesus was created by God, born of a woman and died.  He was not a God.   

The Bible is clear that God is not a man and that God is a spirit.  So how can Jesus Christ be considered a God?  The union of the body (Son) and Spirit (God) is the mystery that 1 Tim 3:16 is talking about.  The mystery is how God managed this, not that God is a mystery.
Topic's author
#21
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,137
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@DavidAZZ
So Jesus was created by God, born of a woman and died.  He was not a God.   

The Bible is clear that God is not a man and that God is a spirit.  So how can Jesus Christ be considered a God?  The union of the body (Son) and Spirit (God) is the mystery that 1 Tim 3:16 is talking about.  The mystery is how God managed this, not that God is a mystery.
You should not call yourself a Christian if you don’t believe in the divinity of Jesus or his resurrection.

What do Christians believe about Jesus divinity?
Most Christians believe that Jesus was both human and the Son of God. While there have been theological debate over the nature of Jesus, Trinitarian Christians generally believe that Jesus is God incarnate, God the Son, and "true God and true man" (or both fully divine and fully human).

Topic's author
#22
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,137
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
Jewish theologyIn Judaism, the idea of God as a duality or trinity is heretical – it is even considered by some polytheistic. According to Judaic beliefs, the Torah rules out a trinitarian God in Deuteronomy (6:4): "Hear Israel, the LORD is our God, the LORD is one."

Do Jews believe that Jesus is the Son of God?
There is no official Jewish view of Jesus but in one respect Jews are agreed in their attitude towards Jesus. Jews reject the tremendous claim, which is made for Jesus by his Christian followers - that Jesus is the Lord Christ, God Incarnate, the very Son of God the Father.

The rabbinical understanding of the Holy Spirit has a certain degree of personification, but it remains, "a quality belonging to God, one of his attributes". The idea of God as a duality or trinity is considered shituf (or "not purely monotheistic").




Topic's author
#23
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,137
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
Does Hinduism believe in a Trinity?
The Trimurti is the trinity of supreme divinity in Hinduism, in which the cosmic functions of creation, preservation, and destruction are personified as a triad of deities. Typically, the designations are that of Brahma the creator, Vishnu the preserver, and Shiva the destroyer.

What religion does not believe in the Trinity?
After the denominations in the Oneness Pentecostal movement, the largest nontrinitarian Christian denominations are the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Jehovah's Witnesses, La Luz del Mundo, and Iglesia ni Cristo.

What religions don't believe Jesus is the son of God?
Islam rejects the Trinitarian Christian view that Jesus was God incarnate or the son of God, that he was ever crucified or resurrected or that he ever atoned for the sins of mankind. The Quran says that Jesus himself, when asked by God if he said that people shall regard him and Mary as gods, will deny this.



#24
DavidAZZ
DavidAZZ's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 394
2
2
5
DavidAZZ's avatar
DavidAZZ
2
2
5
-->
@Shila
You should not call yourself a Christian if you don’t believe in the divinity of Jesus or his resurrection.
I should clarify that Jesus Christ the man was not a God.  The spirit that was inside the body was the divinity.

Topic's author
#25
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,137
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@DavidAZZ
You should not call yourself a Christian if you don’t believe in the divinity of Jesus or his resurrection.
I should clarify that Jesus Christ the man was not a God.  The spirit that was inside the body was the divinity.
That is a reasonable representation of Jesus which Christians can accept. Welcome!!
Topic's author
#26
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,137
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
The Trinity doctrine difficulties are mainly logical. They are well stated in an anonymous seventeenth-century work that has been ascribed to the Socinian John Biddle:
You may add yet more absurdly, that there are three persons who are severally and each of them true God, and yet there is but one God: this is an Error in counting or numbering; which, when stood in, is of all others the most brute and inexcusable, and not to discern it is not to be a Man.
(quoted in Hodgson 1940)
The author of this passage is, essentially, charging that the doctrine of the Trinity implies a violation of the principle of the transitivity of identity, for it implies that the Father is identical with God, God is identical with the Son, and the Father is not identical with the Son. (For a full development of this charge, see Cartwright 1987.) The central problem that faces the doctrine of the Trinity is this: how can the doctrine be stated in a way that is orthodox, clear and does not violate the principle of the transitivity of identity?
The doctrine of the Trinity is one of the Christian mysteries, which means that it cannot be seen to be true, or even to be possible, by the use of unaided human reason. This does not mean, however, that human beings, employing only their unaided reason, cannot usefully discuss the question whether the doctrine is formally self-contradictory. (If it could be demonstrated that the doctrine of the Trinity was formally self-contradictory, that would, of course, show that it was impossible; but the converse entailment does not hold.) The task undertaken in this entry does not, therefore, rest on a failure to appreciate the fact that the doctrine is held by those who accept it to be a mystery.
This entry will consider two recent attempts to avoid the conflict with Leibniz’s Law that the doctrine of the Trinity seems to face (see Identity of indiscernibles §1). One proceeds by affirming that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are numerically distinct from one another, and attempting to show that this thesis is consistent with historical orthodoxy. The other proceeds by denying the ultimate reality of numerical identity – and thus by denying that Leibniz’s Law has anything to apply to. The first risks falling into tritheism, the heresy that there are three Gods. The second risks incoherence if not outright unintelligibility.