Consider the following:

-The first diagram is The Athanasian Creed, generally thought to have been penned by Athanasius of Alexandria, a catholic theologian
from around 300AD. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasian_Creed)

-The second diagram is more of a modern/numerical spin-off from the original that I think helps illustrate the point further.

I think we can all agree that there are verses that have been used for and against the trinity doctrine. Can we come to an accord that the above may satisfy both camps?

Can we come to an accord that there can be no accord in accordance with the accord of the Christian to make an accord out of the patently disconcordant?

Both diagrams do NOTHING except show in bold relief the patent, manifest and inescapable irrationality and falsity of the pagan doctrine of the trinity.

5 - 4 = 1

And -

2 - 1 = 1

And -

3 - 2 = 1

Thus the supposition that all three sets of values do not represent the same value is eminently false.

They represent the exact same value and this is ineluctable and absolutely beyond cavil.

Thus the image on the left is similarly flawed even on the mathematical suppositions of the image on the right.

If God IS the Holy Spirit, and God IS Jesus, then inescapably - Jesus and the Holy Spirit are the same person - God.

The implication in the left diagram that Jesus is not therefore the Holy spirit automatically shows that God could not be both Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

This is iron clad and indisputable in absolute terms.

Deep Sight:

Can we come to an accord that there can be no accord in accordance with the accord of the Christian to make an accord out of the patently disconcordant?

hehe   no we cannot have an accord on that ^^.

btw, you see how the presentation is heavily DS influenced? lol

DeepSight,
  keep in mind, I'm not necessarily looking for a debate as this has been done times without number (sorry to disappoint you on ur favorite pastime ). I threw it out there to see if the "Jesus is not God" camp could find some sort of common ground with those on the other side.

I'm going to take your last post as an iron clad No.

@JeSoul
If your diagram is taken as proof of the doctrine of trinity (as DeepSight seems to see it) then it is flawed because I could as well provide a four-sided or five-sided polygon showing a "quadrinity" or "pentanity". As an illustration, I am sorry to say that my opinion is that it is inadequate.

aletheia:

@JeSoul
If your diagram is taken as proof of the doctrine of trinity (as DeepSight seems to see it) then it is flawed because I could as well provide a four-sided or five-sided polygon showing a "quadrinity" or "pentanity". As an illustration, I am sorry to say that my opinion is that it is inadequate.

Proof ke? by no means at all lol.

  It is meant to be an illustration that attempts to visually describe the trinity doctrine. I was hoping those on both sides may agree on something. So, no-o, not proof at all. And I don't think this "quadrinity" or "pentanity" can be biblically supported as this Trinity diagram can . . . abi I miss something? lol

see. . .

^Awesome btw

But there is no fourth member - biblically speaking. Or is there?

I ve expected the post of my swt since morng&couldnt concentrate much at work. Thk God sha.




would respond fully in support of trinity after watching the europa football match. Take this Acts 20vs 28 talks about relationship of blood of God&christ as same.

I am not saying that there are four persons in the Godhead, only that the diagram is a flawed illustration of the nature of God. I believe that Jesus is God, as the scriptures both OT and NT affirm. It remains then that we can only accept this by faith (believing God). We cannot know but because God says so, then we believe.
Jesus was very clear as to who He was.

John 8:24  I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

This peculiar construction echoes Isaiah.

Isa 43:11-13  I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour. I have declared, and have saved, and I have shewed, when there was no strange god among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, that I am God. Yea, before the day was I am he; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand: I will work, and who shall let it?

There were other occasions where Jesus affirmed his identity as Deity.
This is difficult for the human mind to comprehend and we often try to rationalize it by using word pictures, diagrams and the like, but it's like trying to put all the oceans in a bottle.
We can only remember this: God has permitted us to know some things.

Deu 29:29  The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.

Deep Sight:

Both diagrams do NOTHING except show in bold relief the patent, manifest and inescapable irrationality and falsity of the pagan doctrine of the trinity.

A ridiculously irrelevant and dogmatic submission influenced by ignorance, malady, lack of understanding and disdain for knowledge.

5 - 4 = 1

And -

2 - 1 = 1

And -

3 - 2 = 1

Thus the supposition that all three sets of values do not represent the same value is eminently false.

If u looked closely and again .  . . u would see that the diagrams were designed to arrive at the same value. There was no supposition that suggested contrary.

They represent the exact same value and this is ineluctable and absolutely beyond cavil.

Thus the image on the left is similarly flawed even on the mathematical suppositions of the image on the right.

They represent the same value. . . .but are not constituted in the same way. The added/subtracted values that constitute the "value" are different.
5-4 is different from 3-2 . . . . . but they both arrive at the same values.

If God IS the Holy Spirit, and God IS Jesus, then inescapably - Jesus and the Holy Spirit are the same person - God.

The implication in the left diagram that Jesus is not therefore the Holy spirit automatically shows that God could not be both Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

The diagram is depicted to construct a picture of the supernatural within the limited confines of our understanding. God is one. The names Father, Jesus and Holy Spirit are the names given to His manifestation. This aint rocket science.

This is iron clad and indisputable in absolute terms.

That was PLASTIC clad and very LAME  

aletheia:

I am not saying that there are four persons in the Godhead

Gotcha. I didn't think you were anyways . Thanks for posting those scripture verses too. DS will soon come and harrass you on those lol

only that the diagram is a flawed illustration of the nature of God.

Okay. So if you took away the second diagram and just focused on the original from Athanasius, do you agree with that one? or it also has its shortcomings? Or do you in general simply feel these matters should be spiritually aprehended by the help of the HolySpirit and left alone to faith?

noetic16:

A ridiculously irrelevant and dogmatic submission influenced by ignorance, malady, lack of understanding and disdain for knowledge.

Kai! Noetic, please take it easy ehn lol.

JeSoul:

Okay. So if you took away the second diagram and just focused on the original from Athanasius, do you agree with that one? or it also has its shortcomings? Or do you in general simply feel these matters should be spiritually aprehended by the help of the HolySpirit and left alone to faith?

Well, I sort of feel uneasy about Athanasius', because I think we cannot do better than what is written in scripture. Moreover, the diagram shows four nodes, which seems to detract from the unity of God. Much like the family of Smith, comprising John, Jane and John Jnr: All separate and distinct but all of them Smith (sort of like the Mormon concept of God). See. . .

noetic16:

A ridiculously irrelevant and dogmatic submission influenced by ignorance, malady, lack of understanding and disdain for knowledge.

Well lets have a look sir.

If u looked closely and again .  . . u would see that the diagrams were designed to arrive at the same value. There was no supposition that suggested contrary.

I would strongly suggest to you that YOU should be the one to look closely at the diagram again.

You stated that – “the diagrams were designed to arrive at the same value. There was no supposition that suggested contrary”

- Which is eminently bizarre given that the diagram specifically states and I quote “5 – 4 IS NOT 2 – 1” : Thus it is clear that the diagram DOES INFACT state that the one is not the same as the other – which is eminently FALSE because both simply reflect THE SAME VALUE of 1 (ONE).

- It can hardly be my fault, sir, if you failed to see the words “is not” appearing thrice within the diagram and it thus begs belief that you could suggest that the diagram does not suggest a false difference in values.

They represent the same value. . . .but are not constituted in the same way. The added/subtracted values that constitute the "value" are different.
5-4 is different from 3-2 . . . . . but they both arrive at the same values.

No sir. No, No and thrice No again!

5 – 4 IS NOT different from 3 – 2.

Both represent a value of 1 (One) and this is incontrovertible.

What is the very purpose of inserting a subtraction sign between the figures if not to arrive at a result? The ineluctable result is the figure 1 in all three cases and thus they are THE SAME and the assertion in the diagram that they are not the same is a blatant and unacceptable falsity.

The diagram is depicted to construct a picture of the supernatural within the limited confines of our understanding.

The diagram is designed to explain away the inanity of a pagan concept which you slavishly adhere to contrary to all reason and commonsense.

Sadly, it fails in its mission.

God is one. The names Father, Jesus and Holy Spirit are the names given to His manifestation. This aint rocket science.

IF THIS WAS THE CASE THEN IT SHOULD BE CLEAR THAT JESUS IS THE HOLY SPIRIT – AS THEY ARE BOTH SIMPLY ALMIGHTY GOD MANIFESTING DIFFERENTLY, NO? SO WHY DOES THE DIAGRAM SAY THAT JESUS IS NOT THE HOLY SPIRIT? ? ? YOU ANSWER ME YOURSELF – IS JESUS THE HOLY SPIRIT? ? ?


Simple enough logic –

1. God is Jesus

2. God is the Holy spirit.

3. Both Holy Spirit and Jesus are God.

4. Thus Holy Spirit and Jesus are the same person.

5. So why does the diagram specifically state that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are different people?

aletheia:

Well, I sort of feel uneasy about Athanasius', because I think we cannot do better than what is written in scripture.

  Well said and indeed we cannot. However . . .

the diagram shows four nodes, which seems to detract from the unity of God. Much like the family of Smith, comprising John, Jane and John Jnr: All separate and distinct but all of them Smith (sort of like the Mormon concept of God). See. . .

I see what you mean and its a valid point. However I think you may be approaching it a bit too intellectually. I don't see it as four nodes at all, but more like three, all connected at the core centre, branching out and assuming different manisfestations as some have commonly put it. The Holy Spirit is not Jesus, but yet He is - The Father is not the Son, but yet again, He is - because they are all God.

  I know this will be confusing for non-christians especially. I was hoping for common ground from both sides of "Jesus is/isn't God" (some of which are yet to show up), but going from Deepsight's stand, I'm taking a wild guess it will not happen 

JeSoul:

The Holy Spirit is not Jesus, but yet He is - The Father is not the Son, but yet again, He is.

For one moment pause and close your eyes dear Jesoul.

Good. Now open them and read the statement above again.

How can you honestly be at home with such spin?

I weep.

^ complete my quote now . . .

JeSoul:
The Holy Spirit is not Jesus, but yet He is - The Father is not the Son, but yet again, He is - because they are all God.
I know this will be confusing for non-christians especially.

You yourself have admitted in the past that concerning spiritual matters, quite frequently if I may add, there are things that may be out of one's current grasp. Does any molecule in your fantastically created self allow even the smallest room for that possibility when it comes to the Trinity?

I'm willing to bet that's a no

^^^

Let me put something to you.

Has it ever occurred to you that the real question is not -

- Could it be the case that such a thing as the Trinity can exist?

But -

- Does it in fact exist?

Could Jesus be God? Its possible. Anything is possible since our knowledge is limited. I might be God too. You cannot claim that you know everything - so it is possible that I too am God - and that this transcends your knowledge or understanding.

So the correct question in fact should be - Is Jesus in fact God? Is Deep Sight in fact God?

And not an explanation of how it could be possible. Because we already know anything might be possible.

Let me ask you particularly if you are aware of the origin of the doctrine of the trinity.

Deep Sight:

^^^
Let me put something to you.

Has it ever occurred to you that the real question is not -

- Could it be the case that such a thing as the Trinity can exist?

But -

- Does it in fact exist?

Could Jesus be God? Its possible. Anything is possible since our knowledge is limited. I might be God too. You cannot claim that you know everything - so it is possible that I too am God - and that this transcends your knowledge or understanding.

So the correct question in fact should be - Is Jesus in fact God? Is Deep Sight in fact God?

And not an explanation of how it could be possible. Because we already know anything might be possible.

Q1 is the first step, could it exist? you've admitted yes it can.

Now, whether or not the probability of its existence is high or low is insignificant to the fact that it can infact exist. Especially since it is a spiritual matter, and we know spiritual matters frequently fly over our heads and are not necessarily deduced by established laws of reasoning.

and btw, I know you are not God beyond all doubt, how many miracles have you done lately?

Let me ask you particularly if you are aware of the origin of the doctrine of the trinity.

I am aware of some of the beef that took place when it was being duked out by the early Catholics. Whether or not to include it as an official doctrine etc etc . . . my belief of it is not based on anything man has said or done. I see it in the scriptures - that is why I believe it.

JeSoul:

and btw, I know you are not God beyond all doubt, how many miracles have you done lately?

You see what I mean?

How do you know I am not God?

1. You admit that "spiritual matters fly over our heads". . . thus you cannot tell affirmatively that I am not God. The best you can say is that you do not know if I am in fact God - because it is a matter you have admitted transcends human understanding.

2. Your grim assurance that I am not God derives from the fact that you know I am a man: In this i put it squarely to your face that if you lived in Jesus' time and sat next to him and knew him the way you know me as a man - you would posess the same grim certainty that he was simply another man - and not the Almighty Creator. It would sound ridiculous to you - and it is only acceptable in your ears now because it is removed from you by the passage of time and the force of Church history has made it sound acceptable to call a fellow human being the Almighty creator.

3. Do not even dare point to miracles because there are people performing miracles today, just as others performed miracles back then - and you do not therefore accept any of them as God do you?

And by the way, i do perform miracles.

I cant draw like you guys but God is the exclusive intersection of 3 sets- Father, Son, Holy Spirit.

Deep Sight:

You see what I mean?

How do you know I am not God?

The same way I know Jesus is God - By Faith. And also some basic evidence, can you tell us, if you are God, how you created the universe? This may be a wild assumption, but I'm pretty sure you can't.

1. You admit that "spiritual matters fly over our heads". . . thus you cannot tell affirmatively that I am not God. The best you can say is that you do not know if I am in fact God - because it is a matter you have admitted transcends human understanding.

2. Your grim assurance that I am not God derives from the fact that you know I am a man: In this i put it squarely to your face that if you lived in Jesus' time and sat next to him and knew him the way you know me as a man - you would posess the same grim certainty that he was simply another man - and not the Almighty Creator. It would sound ridiculous to you - and it is only acceptable in your ears now because it is removed from you by the passage of time and the force of Church history has made it sound acceptable to call a fellow human being the Almighty creator.

3. Do not even dare point to miracles because there are people performing miracles today, just as others performed miracles back then - and you do not therefore accept any of them as God do you?

1. No actually. The best I can tell myself is that you are not God (faith again). What you believe about yourself or what anyone else believes about your person is of zero significance - to me - and vice versa. These matters are intensely and thoroughly personal and should be treated as such. My faith was never meant to be projected and become proof for others to use to build their own belief and vice versa.
  and the best you can subsequently say is the Trinity is false- by your own faith, but you do not subscribe to faith-based anything do you? Oh prophet of OOI? 

2. It is written that Jesus did and said things that set Him worlds apart from the other wannabes in His day. Whether or not you or I choose to believe the account is the issue. I have chosen to believe.

And by the way, i do perform miracles.

hehe, talk is cheap, show us . . .

JeSoul:

The same way I know Jesus is God - By Faith.

This is saying exactly nothing.

By faith, the followers of Olumba Olumba also know that Olumba Olumba is God.

By faith, Hindus also know that cows are divine.

And also some basic evidence,

Like. . . ? ? ?

Please don’t be clever by half.

There can be no conceivable “evidence” that Jesus is God.

Best stick to your “faith” reply dear.

Which anybody can use as an excuse to believe anything, by the way.

Sometimes you guys make me want to scratch my hair out.

A Jewish Rabbi is Almighty God. And you claim to have “evidence” for this? Heaven help me. Perhaps she’s gonna post a video recording of the transfiguration.

can you tell us, if you are God, how you created the universe? This may be a wild assumption, but I'm pretty sure you can't.

I am a compound and complete trans-dimensional magnetic element that is the only reality that exists: my nature means that infinite forms inherent in my compound and eternal mind are ceaselessly spawned from my intangible essence. In other words, I cannot stop creating. You may say I spawn things ceaselessly and this is also quite involuntary for me. Spawning endless realities is as natural to me as breathing is to you.

Deep Sight:

I am a compound and complete trans-dimensional magnetic element that is the only reality that exists: my nature means that infinite forms inherent in my compound and eternal mind are ceaselessly spawned from my intangible essence. In other words, I cannot stop creating. You may say I spawn things ceaselessly and this is also quite involuntary for me. Spawning endless realities is as natural to me as breathing is to you.

If one of my patients came into the consulting room saying these words, we would commit him.

However unlike you who provides no evidence (signs) for your claims, Jesus performed many signs pointing to who he was. Indeed they Jews did not doubt the reality of his miracles, only the source of his power to do such miracles. Consider this encounter.

Mark 2:5-12 And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Son, your sins are forgiven." Now some of the scribes were sitting there, questioning in their hearts, "Why does this man speak like that? He is blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?" And immediately Jesus, perceiving in his spirit that they thus questioned within themselves, said to them, "Why do you question these things in your hearts? Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Rise, take up your bed and walk'? But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins"--he said to the paralytic-- "I say to you, rise, pick up your bed, and go home." And he rose and immediately picked up his bed and went out before them all, so that they were all amazed and glorified God, saying, "We never saw anything like this!"

John 15:24 If I had not done among them the works that no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin, but now they have seen and hated both me and my Father.

JeSoul on the Doctrine of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. 

Just seen this. Hope to read thread and, hopefully, contribute. I see Deep Sight is back and already giving it some fizgigs. Do have a great weekend, a all.

aletheia:

If one of my patients came into the consulting room saying these words, we would commit him.

If anybody could describe the nature of God, by the time he is done, you would also commit him.

Jesoul - beware that that which you claim to "know" by faith is a very ancient pagan dogma which early christianity knew nothing about.

Even if you wish to argue that Jesus is God, note that there isn't the faintest suggestion of a three-way personage anywhere in the scriptures.

That idea was imported from Babylonian and Egyptian triads of gods, aside from other ancient triads of Gods which the Romans were influenced by -

THE TRINITY IDEA WAS BORROWED FROM HEATHEN RELIGIONS

A Dictionary of Religious Knowledge records that many historians believe that the Trinity "is a corruption borrowed from the heathen religions, and ingrafted on the Christian faith."

Edward Gibbons's History of Christianity notes: "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."

Historian Will Durant observed: "Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it. . . From Egypt came the ideas of a divine trinity."
Siegfried Morenz, in the book 'Egyptian Religion' notes: "The trinity was a major preoccupation of Egyptian theologians . . . These 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."

James Hastings wrote in the Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics: "In Indian religion, e.g., we meet with the trinitarian group of Brahma, Siva, and Visnu; 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 views of the Supreme or Ultimate Reality. which is triadically represented."

The French New Universal Dictionary reveals both Plato's Greek Philosophical Influence upon Christianity and that of ancient pagan religions: "The Platonic Trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian Churches. . . Thus Greek philosophers conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient pagan religions."

L. L. Paine records that the Trinity idea stems from Pagan Roots: ". . . among the more highly civilized Chaldaeans, Babylonians, Assyrians, and Egyptians, triads of gods were a common and notable feature of their theogonies."

H. P. Blavatsky in Isis Unveiled (pages 45,46), reveals that the Trinity Dogma originated from Babylon:

"We find it northeast of the Indus; and tracing it to Asia Minor and Europe, recognize it among every people who had anything like an established religion. It was taught in the oldest Chaldaean, Egyptian, and Mithraitic schools. The Chaldaean Sun-god, Mithra, was called 'Triple,' and the trinitarian idea of the Chaldaeans was a doctrine of the Akkadians, who themselves belonged to a race which was the first to conceive a metaphysical trinity. According to Rawlinson, the Chaldaeans are a tribe of the Akkadians, who lived in Babylonia from the earliest of times."

^^^
Really doesn't prove much except that pagans believed such. But from the biblical perspective I would see it as a perversion of the truth. Man has been in descent right from the garden of Eden, therefore his religions will be a distortion of the truth. Case in point, consider the accounts of Gilgamesh and Deucalion (Babylonian and Greek), which are a corruption of the story of Noah.

^^^ It is telling that pagans believed such long before it was suddenly imported into Christianity, no?

WHERE in the bible is there even a faint suggestion of ANY Triad?

SHOW ME.

That it was not there is what inspired the fraud in 1 Jn. 5 v 7 KJV which has since been removed.