As for the God preached by the bible, he has always been distinctly single -

"Hear o Israel, the Lord our God is one God" - Deut. 6:4.

^^^The Hebrew word Elohim, is it singular or plural?

Deu 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God (elohim) is one LORD:

^^^ Here's your answer -

Wikepedia on the word "Elohim" -

Elohim (אֱלהִים) is a Hebrew word which expresses concepts of divinity or deity, notably used as a name of God in Judaism. It is apparently related to the Northwest Semitic word ʾēl (אֱל) "god". Within Hebrew, it is morphologically a plural, in use both as a true plural with the meaning "angels, gods, rulers" and as a "plural intensive" with singular meaning, referring to a god or goddess, and especially to the single God of Israel. The associated singular Eloah (אלוה) occurs only in poetry and in late Biblical Hebrew, in imitation of Aramaic usage.[1]

In the Torah, the word sometimes acts as a singular noun in Hebrew grammar, and is then generally understood to denote the single God of Israel, while in other cases, it acts as an ordinary plural and refers to the polytheistic notion of multiple gods (see Sons of God).

deep sigh . . . here we go again.

Deep Sight:

^^^ Here's your answer -

Wikepedia on the word "Elohim" -

Elohim (אֱלהִים) is a Hebrew word which expresses concepts of divinity or deity, notably used as a name of God in Judaism. It is apparently related to the Northwest Semitic word ʾēl (אֱל) "god". Within Hebrew, it is morphologically a plural, in use both as a true plural with the meaning "angels, gods, rulers" and as a "plural intensive" with singular meaning, referring to a god or goddess, and especially to the single God of Israel. The associated singular Eloah (אלוה) occurs only in poetry and in late Biblical Hebrew, in imitation of Aramaic usage.[1]

In the Torah, the word sometimes acts as a singular noun in Hebrew grammar, and is then generally understood to denote the single God of Israel, while in other cases, it acts as an ordinary plural and refers to the polytheistic notion of multiple gods (see Sons of God).

Stripped of all the verbiage, you concede that it's a plural word, not? Why is a plural word used to for YHWH?

^^^ I am going to presume you did not read the quote from wikipedia above at all.

When you read it, revert to me.

_{I am reading Psalm 22.}

^^^
Oh, I read it but did you actually read it or you were in a haste to cut and paste?

In the Torah, the word sometimes acts as a singular noun in Hebrew grammar, and is then generally understood to denote the single God of Israel, while in other cases, it acts as an ordinary plural and refers to the polytheistic notion of multiple gods (see Sons of God).

The entry clearly concedes that it is a plural word whether used for the God of Israel or multiple gods. So again my question to you once again is: Why is a plural word used to for YHWH by a people who are undoubtedly monotheistic in their outlook?

I insist that you did NOT read it or i would not have to post these parts of it again -

[size=14pt]In the Torah, the word sometimes acts as a singular noun in Hebrew grammar, and is then generally understood to denote the single God of Israel,[/size]

Deep Sight:

I insist that Deep Sight did NOT read it or i would not have to post these parts of it again -

[size=14pt]In the Torah, the plural word sometimes acts as a singular noun in Hebrew grammar, and is then generally understood to denote the single God of Israel,[/size]

If it were a singular word, would the clarification that it sometimes acts as a single noun be necessary?

^^^ That is beside the point so long as -

1. It is accepted that it also acts as a singular noun in the Torah and crucially -

2. When it appears as such, it is then understood to denote the single God of Israel.

This is clear. No argument.

But by the way -

Have you ever heard of the plural of royalty? Maybe the Queen of England, who is addressed as "they" "we" and "us" is also a Trinity?

Deep Sight:

^^^ That is beside the point so long as -

It is not beside the point. Since you cannot answer my question as to why a monotheistic people will use a plural form which in English would be translated "Gods" for YHWH who is One you hasten to dismiss it as beside the point. No sir.

Deep Sight:

  1. It is accepted that it also acts as a singular noun in the Torah and crucially -

  2. When it appears as such, it is then understood to denote the single God of Israel.

This is clear. No argument.

Very clear. So we are back to my question: Why will a monotheistic people use the plural form Gods for YHWH who declares himself One?

Deep Sight:

But by the way -

Have you ever heard of the plural of royalty? Maybe the Queen of England, who is addressed as "they" "we" and "us" is also a Trinity?

In trying to make your point you introduce a red herring. The queen may address herself using the pluralis maiestatis, but do we address the queen as they? Not likely. I know you are trying to link this to the use of elohim but do you address QEII as the "Queens" of England? Not likely.

Hehe, my turn to cut and paste from Wikipedia:

In pluralis maiestatis a speaker refers to himself using a grammatical number other than the singular (i.e., in plural or, where attested, dual form). For example, the Basic Law of the Sultanate of Oman opens thus:
On the Issue of the Basic Law of the State We, Qaboos bin Said, Sultan of Oman…

Deep Sight:

Well lets have a look sir.

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.

The least u can do is to be honest in "debates"

Each component is different. . . . implying that "5-4" is different from "3-2" . . . . but both arrive at the same value.
How else do u want me to express it to you Sir, that while the composition is different. . .their values are the SAME.
The implication of this reality in the second diagram is that while the actions and composition of the Jesus entity might differ (based on our knowledge and understanding) from the HS their values as GOD does not. This value is primarily called WILL.

So while "5-4" IS NOT "3-2" . . . . It however arrives at a predetermined value of 1. . . , this aint rocket science Sir.

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 result differs from the composition. It could as well have been an addition sign saying "0+1" or "2+(-)1" while the result would inevitably be 1. . . .u would however be out of your senses to insinuate that both additions are equal in composition.

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

If u choose to separate ignorant opinions from facts, perhaps u might have an understanding of the issue at stake.


1. Regardless of your innuendos. . .are the 1 billion xtians who believe in the trinity pagans? can u thoughtfully call them pagans?

2. The idea of trinity is not inept of reason, quite unlike your assumption. It describes a union beyond the scope of human definition, analysis and understanding. . .and is largely subject to faith. Notwithstanding, the concept is within the confines of intellectual analysis.

3. u might as well keep your uninformed opinions to urself.

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?

Let me try to rationalize the trinity debacle. . . . . .to accommodate your ignorance.

1. One of the ontological attributes of God refers to God as omnipresent. . . . meaning that He is present everywhere. The symbol of this presence is called the Holy Spirit.

2. Jesus created the earth as we see it today . . . and twas He who appeared to Moses in the burning bush . . . .He was the rock that was hit by moses. Jesus then chose to die for our sins on the cross. At the point of His earthly mission, Jesus prayed to GOD sitted on the throne in heaven.

3. The physical entity who died on the cross is Jesus. The God He prayed to is called the Father. They remain the same person.

why are all three the same persons?
If God is omni-present and this presence is usually symbolised as the HS . . . .can we then say that Jesus is not omni-present? IF Jesus is not omni-present, the He is NOT God. . . .if however He is omni-present. . . .then He is also the HS.

If we say God the father created all that exists,  . .yet the bible says clearly that Jesus made all things (John 1:3). . . . .If the Jesus who made all things is NOT God the father . . . .then who made all things? Jesus or God the father?

1. Was Jesus still omnipresent while he was in his physical body on Earth?

You stated - "The physical entity who died on the cross is Jesus." -

Was he omnipresent whilst dying on the cross?

If not, did he cease to be the Holy Spirit for a time? ? ?

2. You stated - "The God he prayed to is called the Father"

- Does God pray to himself?

- How could he be the Father when he expressly stated that there are things he does not know - whereas God the Father is said to be omniscient?

- Did he lose his omniscience at any point?

Deep Sight:

1. Was Jesus still omnipresent while he was in his physical body on Earth?

You stated - "The physical entity who died on the cross is Jesus." -

Was he omnipresent whilst dying on the cross?

If not, did he cease to be the Holy Spirit for a time? ? ?

You could as well start by answering my own questions . . . .u dont have the monopoly of questions.

I left the poser for u to decide. Is Jesus omni-present?. . . . .if yes, how does that relate to the HS? if No. . .does that not contradict His ontology?

Perhaps u could start by illustrating the differences btw Jesus and the HS.

2. You stated - "The God he prayed to is called the Father"

- Does God pray to himself?

- How could he be the Father when he expressly stated that there are things he does not know - whereas God the Father is said to be omniscient?

- Did he lose his omniscience at any point?

What do understand by prayer?

noetic16:


I left the poser for u to decide. Is Jesus omni-present?. . . . .

I am unable to see how or why a mere mortal man like Jesus of Nazareth could be described as omnipresent.

Are you omnipresent? ? ?

If not, then why should a Jewish Rabbi be described as omnipresent. Do such comments not reek of a slight instability which might require expert attention from persons trained in neurology and other associated sciences?

I am at odds that a man of your profound spirituality and intellect cannot see the comedy of the claim that Mr. Jesus is almighty God.

You severely dishonour and blaspheme the primordial Godhead by equating mere mortals to God.

Deep Sight:

I am unable to see how or why a mere mortal man like Jesus of Nazareth could be described as omnipresent.

Are you omnipresent? ? ?

If not, then why should a Jewish Rabbi be described as omnipresent. Do such comments not reek of a slight instability which might require expert attention from persons trained in neurology and other associated sciences?

Fine. You have answered my poser and revealed ur ignorance.
If u see Jesus as a mortal and not God . . . .then I cant help u.

I am at odds that a man of your profound spirituality and intellect cannot see the comedy of the claim that Mr. Jesus is almighty God.

I am at odds at the disdain for knowledge and celebration of ignorance. Jesus is God.

You severely dishonour and blaspheme the primordial Godhead by equating mere mortals to God.

u dont know God.

With or without a diagram I believe that all 3 persons are independent of each other as members of the Deity. The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are One, but not the same.

The word trinity back then might have been used in the wrong manner, hence its constant association with pagan origins, but its use today has taken on a different meaning which highlights the Deity as three separate members having Deitic qualities.

Deep Sight:

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.

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.

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.

you have said nothing either
Bcuz by faith you believe that there is no God
Plus do U have "evidence" that he doesnt have "evidence" that A jewish Rabbi Is the Almighty God. . . Then u might as well post a video recording that she has no video recording of the transfiguration  . . .
might I also add that your idea of evidence is extremely flawed evidence is not "proof". A video recording is proof. evidence points us in the right direction but proves nothing. .
I could say a lot on your other posts but that's for another day

At post
I totally concur with the family triangle Illustration. I once came up with that. . . didn't know it actually existed.

@streetwize: Deep Sight is not an atheist, he believes in deity. He is a deist, but his own brand of deism does not seem to understand itself so as much as he is the acclaimed prophet of the Oneness of Infinity, he is also the only one who knows and is known to that intangible Oneness of Infinity (OOI) which some of us asked him to discuss and when he began to murder mathematics and logic and we prevented him, he fled the thread. Since January.

@Deep Sight: Can you please present your logical rationale for your assurance that God CAN NOT take any form he so desires (e.g. Man), the same way you will choose your words in your response to this? In the same light, pls indicate other things that your OOI deity is unable to do.

Deep Sight:

As for the God preached by the bible, he has always been distinctly single -

"Hear o Israel, the Lord our God is one God" - Deut. 6:4.

  Deepsight, you quote that verse^. And if you were a christian or had the help of the holy spirit, you would immediately recognize that it does not for a nanosecond, stand in contradiction to the Trinity doctrine.

---

You questioned where the Trinity is "even hinted at" in the bible. I ask you, how would you biblically classify or explain or categorize the relationship between each of these:

- The Father
- Jesus Christ
- The Holy Spirit . . .

1. amongst themselves, and
2. in relation to God almighty

InesQor:

@streetwize: Deep Sight is not an atheist, he believes in deity. He is a deist, but his own brand of deism does not seem to understand itself so as much as he is the acclaimed prophet of the Oneness of Infinity, he is also the only one who knows and is known to that intangible Oneness of Infinity (OOI) which some of us asked him to discuss and when he began to murder mathematics and logic and we prevented him, he fled the thread. Since January.

@Deep Sight: Can you please present your logical rationale for your assurance that God CAN NOT take any form he so desires (e.g. Man), the same way you will choose your words in your response to this? In the same light, pls indicate other things that your OOI deity is unable to do.

LMAO!!

Deep Sight:

As for the God preached by the bible, he has always been distinctly single -

"Hear o Israel, the Lord our God is one God" - Deut. 6:4.

hear oh nairaland, the smith family is one family. . so

@ Streetwize -

I am in transit at an airport now and cannot write much.

I will just drop a few thots.

1. What does the oneness of the GODHEAD mean to you?

2. If God is presumed to be one supreme intangible being, do you suppose that intangible oneness is something that can be "divided" [/b]or broken up into parts in such a manner as to permit one part to reside on earth as a man and another part to remain in its transcendental realm? Does this make any sense to you, or do you belong to the christian hoard who are bent on insisting that the founder of their religion, a man called Jesus from Nazareth, is almighty God? I urge you to examine the facts for yourself objectively - you will find that the doctrine of the trinity has no biblical support: and even if it did that would not in any way validate the elevation of a mere mortal to almighty God any more than the existence of any Hindu text can justify the ascription of Divinity to cows.

In 2010, I remain astonished that educated persons can believe these things.

JeSoul:


You questioned where the Trinity is "even hinted at" in the bible. I ask you, how would you [b]biblically classify or explain or categorize the relationship between each of these:

- The Father
- Jesus Christ
- The Holy Spirit . . .

1. amongst themselves, and
2. in relation to God almighty

I understand "the Father" to be a reference to God.

Jesus Christ is a late human being. A proven mere mortal. Doubtless a messenger of God, but no more eminent than any other messenger of God such as Moses. Why should i presuppose him to be in any "trinity" with almighty God? You might as well suppose the Buddha, Mohammad, the Dalai Lama, Confucius, Lao Tze, Guru Maharaji and Olumba Olumba Obu to be part of the Godhead as well? ? ?

The Holy Spirit is simply a reference to the power, spirit and radiation of God which permeates all existence. There is no reason to think of it as a separate being in any terms. It is simply the activating power of God.

InesQor:

@streetwize: Deep Sight is not an atheist, he believes in deity. He is a deist, but his own brand of deism does not seem to understand itself so as much as he is the acclaimed prophet of the Oneness of Infinity, he is also the only one who knows and is known to that intangible Oneness of Infinity (OOI) which some of us asked him to discuss and when he began to murder mathematics and logic and we prevented him, he fled the thread. Since January.

It was and remains apt that i abandoned that thread for I realized that it might make no sense attempting to expound transcendental truth to persons whose only object is to dispute every rational word simply on account of a dislike of the person who speaks it. When you learn to address the message and not the messenger, perhaps we can make progress.

O, and by the way, if you will read that thread again, you will see that we were able to establish at least the following -

1. That nothingness in itself implies timelessness

2. That a timeless state will remain eternal

3. That eternity is therefore implied in a state of nothingness

4. That a timeless state is indivisible and therefore ONE

5. That the intangible reality that has always existed is therefore both ONE and INFINITE -

-  Hence the term "Oneness of Infinity" which i use to describe the nature of God - a term which no Christian should seriously dispute because the Bible itself describes God as being ONE and INFINITE. It thus emerges that your faith in every particular agrees with the description of God contained within the term "Oneness of Infinity" - but YOU have chosen to self-contradict and deny this simply on account of some imaginary feud with the proponent of the description - Mr. Deep Sight.

Verily, the day will come when i will describe God as loving, just and perfect, and you will disagree - simply because it is i who states it.

@Deep Sight: Can you please present your logical rationale for your assurance that God CAN NOT take any form he so desires (e.g. Man)

An intangible and infinite reality such as the Godhead is, CANNOT be reduced into ANY FORM WHATSOEVER - and that includes the form of a man.

The reason rests in the very ineffability, intangibility and infinity of the Godhead.

The finite CANNOT contain the infinite.

I know my head will be axed for this, but in truth Jesus is no longer omnipresent in the word's truest sense. He gave up that attribute when He became a man. The problem most Christians seem to have is not realizing that Jesus is still in the flesh, only this time, His flesh became glorified after He rose from the dead. So in essence Jesus has a glorified body which we will receive when He comes again.

Listen to Paul as he explains, "Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself." Phil. 3:21

John says "we will see Him as He is, " That is why we will be able to touch Jesus in heaven and relate to Him the same way His disciples did when He was here on earth.

The angels told the disciples that "this same Jesus which is taken up into heaven shall so come in like manner, " The 2nd coming of Jesus however, will be extremely glorious and majestic despite He being in the flesh. Don't be fooled. Matthew speaks of such a glory at His coming in Matthew 24:30 which says, "30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory."
 

In what can be seen as a very profound act, God gave His Son to mankind forever to the extent that Christ's body will remain in human form. So next time we quote John 3:16 let us see it from that stand point as well. This to me brings out the true meaning of sacrifice on the part of both the Father and His Son. This act in itself was the ultimate sacrifice not just from the standpoint of Jesus' death, but what He had to give up in order to redeem sinful humans.

There can be no greater love displayed.

Trinity, trinity, trinity . . . .3 = 1 . . . . . what do you think, logical or not? Its very obvious that some drunk men sat down and developed this concept for reasons best known to them and only them.

In my opinion a hallmark characteristic of a modern Christian is the ability to hold contradictory views & not have it bother him/her at all, because the alternative is unacceptable to himself/herself. Makes perfect sense the Christians here says about the trinity, because if they don't they'll have to admit to themselves that it doesn't make sense at all and is probably bullshit.

If god = the father + the son + the holy spirit and each one is also god, then all of you guys here should readily agree that their god fathered himself through a virgin to serve as sacrifice to himself so that he would forgive the flawed creatures that he'd created, for their flaws which he had designed in them. Funny aint it?

@ Jesoul

Deepsight, you quote that verse^. And if you were a christian or had the help of the holy spirit, you would immediately recognize that it does not for a nanosecond, stand in contradiction to the Trinity doctrine.

You questioned where the Trinity is "even hinted at" in the bible. I ask you, how would you biblically classify or explain or categorize the relationship between each of these:

- The Father
- Jesus Christ
- The Holy Spirit . . .

Very well put. The writers would not have used such comparisons for no reason at all. From the creation account itself that comparative notion of more than one in the Deity was brought out in scripture.

When the bible speaks of "One God", what is it saying? Its speaking to the concept of unity among the members of the Deity. Jesus Himself also alluded to it as well, when He said to His disciples, "I and the Father are One"

Did He say that He and the Father are the same? Absolutely not. Being One and the same are two different matters.

thanks for the response DS

Deep Sight:

I understand "the Father" to be a reference to God.

Okay.

Jesus Christ is a late human being. A proven mere mortal. Doubtless a messenger of God, but no more eminent than any other messenger of God such as Moses. Why should i presuppose him to be in any "trinity" with almighty God? You might as well suppose the Buddha, Mohammad, the Dalai Lama, Confucius, Lao Tze, Guru Maharaji and Olumba Olumba Obu to be part of the Godhead as well? ? ?

So what is your explanation of John 1 -
In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God . . .
14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.
We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only,
who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.  

 I am interested in your take on this scripture where we're clearly told Jesus was the Word, and the Word was God and the Word was at the same time - with God.

btw have a safe flight wherever you're jetting off to

---

Bobbyaf:

When the bible speaks of "One God", what is it saying? Its speaking to the concept of unity among the members of the Deity. Jesus Himself also alluded to it as well, when He said to His disciples, "I and the Father are One"

Did He say that He and the Father are the same? Absolutely not. Being One and the same are two different matters.

Lol, thank you oh!

@Deep Sight does not seem to get the irony of the fact that his beliefs cannot withstand the same scrutiny he dishes out to other worldviews. Meanwhile you are dishonest to say I disagree because its Deep Sight. Posting as mavenbox, I was like maybe the only person who added a bit of context to your posts and I agreed with you on some points but where I believe you were crapping, I outlined as well.

As to the containment, or rather, subsistence of God in human flesh, I guess it was people like you that also strongly believed that a single DNA strand of a man can never perfectly capture his physical essence of being.

LOL JeSoul I know what he will say about that, I guess, cos we have discussed 2ce or 3ce and i showed him how I understood it from various angles, but he insisted on the Jehova's Witness translation and co. Let me watch as it unfolds again.

mazaje:

Trinity, trinity, trinity . . . .3 = 1 . . . . . what do you think, logical or not?  Its very obvious that some drunk men sat down and developed this concept for reasons best known to them and only them.

In my opinion a hallmark characteristic of a modern Christian is the ability to hold contradictory views & not have it bother him/her at all, because the alternative is unacceptable to himself/herself. Makes perfect sense the Christians here says about the trinity, because if they don't they'll have to admit to themselves that it doesn't make sense at all and is probably bullshit.

If god = the father + the son + the holy spirit and each one is also god, then all of you guys here should readily agree that  their god fathered himself through a virgin to serve as sacrifice to himself so that he would forgive the flawed creatures that he'd created, for their flaws which he had designed in them. Funny aint it?

Do u actually read some of these things u write?

InesQor:

@Deep Sight[b] does not seem to get the irony of the fact that his beliefs cannot withstand the same scrutiny [/b]he dishes out to other worldviews. Meanwhile you are dishonest to say I disagree because its Deep Sight. Posting as mavenbox, I was like maybe the only person who added a bit of context to your posts and I agreed with you on some points but where I believe you were crapping, I outlined as well.

As to the containment, or rather, subsistence of God in human flesh, I guess it was people like you that also strongly believed that a single DNA strand of a man can never perfectly capture his physical essence of being.

DeepSight is legendary for his Dogma, ignorance and inability to construct an intelligent defence for his beliefs.
He is good at asking questions. . . . . not good at answering questions.

Deep Sight:

@ Streetwize -

I am in transit at an airport now and cannot write much.

I will just drop a few thots.

1. What does the oneness of the GODHEAD mean to you?

2. If God is presumed to be one supreme intangible being, do you suppose that intangible oneness is something that can be [b]"divided" [/b]or broken up into parts in such a manner as to permit one part to reside on earth as a man and another part to remain in its transcendental realm? Does this make any sense to you, or do you belong to the christian hoard who are bent on insisting that the founder of their religion, a man called Jesus from Nazareth, is almighty God? I urge you to examine the facts for yourself objectively - you will find that the doctrine of the trinity has no biblical support: and even if it did that would not in any way validate the elevation of a mere mortal to almighty God any more than the existence of any Hindu text can justify the ascription of Divinity to cows.

In 2010, I remain astonished that educated persons can believe these things.

I understand "the Father" to be a reference to God.

Jesus Christ is a late human being. A proven mere mortal. Doubtless a messenger of God, but no more eminent than any other messenger of God such as Moses. Why should i presuppose him to be in any "trinity" with almighty God? You might as well suppose the Buddha, Mohammad, the Dalai Lama, Confucius, Lao Tze, Guru Maharaji and Olumba Olumba Obu to be part of the Godhead as well? ? ?

The Holy Spirit is simply a reference to the power, spirit and radiation of God which permeates all existence. There is no reason to think of it as a separate being in any terms. It is simply the activating power of God.

It was and remains apt that i abandoned that thread for I realized that it might make no sense attempting to expound transcendental truth to persons whose only object is to dispute every rational word simply on account of a dislike of the person who speaks it. When you learn to address the message and not the messenger, perhaps we can make progress.

O, and by the way, if you will read that thread again, you will see that we were able to establish at least the following -

1. That nothingness in itself implies timelessness

2. That a timeless state will remain eternal

3. That eternity is therefore implied in a state of nothingness

4. That a timeless state is indivisible and therefore ONE

5. That the intangible reality that has always existed is therefore both ONE and INFINITE -

-  Hence the term "Oneness of Infinity" which i use to describe the nature of God - a term which no Christian should seriously dispute because the Bible itself describes God as being ONE and INFINITE. It thus emerges that your faith in every particular agrees with the description of God contained within the term "Oneness of Infinity" - but YOU have chosen to self-contradict and deny this simply on account of some imaginary feud with the proponent of the description - Mr. Deep Sight.

Verily, the day will come when i will describe God as loving, just and perfect, and you will disagree - simply because it is i who states it.

An intangible and infinite reality such as the Godhead is, CANNOT be reduced into ANY FORM WHATSOEVER - and that includes the form of a man.

The reason rests in the very ineffability, intangibility and infinity of the Godhead.

The finite CANNOT contain the infinite.

You seem to totally misunderstand the concept of BEING
Ontology makes it quite clear( as sartre did, that being is not individual) According to ontology(the study of being) a "being" refers to ones state of expressin or manifesting the attribute "to be". U can see where thats goin so I wont waste time

In essence God Is a being that consists three manifestations or if you prefer three persons. .  the father, son and holy spirit. Just as you are a being that consists of a spirit, a soul and a body. you are also three in one or howd you think your being could still manifest when your body is left to rot on earth.

Anyway, yes Jesus was 100% man and 100% God. I fail to see how educated people in 2010 cant see how this was possible.
Its like saying. .  Im 100% animal and 100% human being, what is illogical about this.

The answer to your questions is simple
Jesus was the physical manifestation of the member of the God head called God the son. God the son did not die he was. . . if you want me to put it like this. .  the soul of the being whose total entity we called Jesus. It is just as your body will die and your soul will continue to live on.
God the son is Jesus thus Jesus is God the son who is in turn God. . . Is this illogical in any way??

Now for your very last and very careless statement. You say that the finite cannot hold the infinite?? what is your basisfor this silly rodomontade. .
so that I last longer that the t-shirt I am wearing means that I cannot wear the t-shirt. .  where do these people get all these silly ideas from??
God the son wore a body, that the body now expired means what exactly?? una dey always surprise me oh

And for your information, it was actually the infinite that contained the finite
what your saying is like saying that because the distance from (1-2) cannot be expressed on the numberline because the number line is infinite, but (1-2) is finite. . . shora e oh. . .

@Deep Sight,
You need to calm down.

Deep Sight:

1. What does the oneness of the GODHEAD mean to you?

2. If God is presumed to be one supreme intangible being, do you suppose that intangible oneness is something that can be "divided" [/b]or broken up into parts in such a manner as to permit one part to reside on earth as a man and another part to remain in its transcendental realm?

Mat 19:26  But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; [b]but with God all things are possible.

Sorry, but your limited rational mind cannot understand it. But it was always so. The very rational Greeks considered it foolishness.

1 Co 1:22-23  For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

So you see, you are in very illustrious company.

Deep Sight:

- you will find that the doctrine of the trinity has no biblical support: and [b]even if it did [/b]that would not in any way validate the elevation of a mere mortal to almighty God any more than the existence of any Hindu text can justify the ascription of Divinity to cows.

Even if it did (i.e. even if there is biblical support for the trinity)---your own words. This shows the nature of your rejection of the truth. It has been shown to you severally, on different occasions, the biblical verses that support the teaching, but you have rejected it because of your rational, educated presuppositions. Do you realize that Occam's Razor makes a belief in the trinity more plausible than your Oneness Of Infinity?

Deep Sight:

In 2010, I remain astonished that educated persons can believe these things.

In 2010, I remain astonished that educated persons can believe things like the Oneness of Infinity. Aren't you being the hypocrite?

Deep Sight:

Jesus Christ is a late human being. A proven mere mortal. Doubtless a messenger of God, but no more eminent than any other messenger of God such as Moses. Why should i presuppose him to be in any "trinity" with almighty God? You might as well suppose the Buddha, Mohammad, the Dalai Lama, Confucius, Lao Tze, Guru Maharaji and Olumba Olumba Obu to be part of the Godhead as well? ? ?

"Doubtless a messenger of God"? Once again, your very own words. What are you trying to do? Hedge your bets? What evidence do you Deep Sight have that Jesus Christ of Nazareth was a messenger of God? If you can give me that, then I will showw you why you should presuppose that Jesus is God. BTW, is Jesus a messenger of your OOI god? Otherwise which God are you talking about?

Deep Sight:

It was and remains apt that i abandoned that thread for I realized that it might make no sense attempting to expound transcendental truth to persons whose only object is to dispute every rational word simply on account of a dislike of the person who speaks it. When you learn to address the message and not the messenger, perhaps we can make progress.

O, and by the way, if you will read that thread again, you will see that we were able to establish at least the following -

1. That nothingness in itself implies timelessness

2. That a timeless state will remain eternal

3. That eternity is therefore implied in a state of nothingness

4. That a timeless state is indivisible and therefore ONE

5. That the intangible reality that has always existed is therefore both ONE and INFINITE -

OOI is a transcendental truth? Give us a break man. You abandoned that thread because you were murdering mathematics, logic and language in a laboured effort to prove your god, but we would have none of it. We established. . .nada on that thread.You have a habit of making tendentious claims.

Deep Sight:

-  Hence the term "Oneness of Infinity" which i use to describe the nature of God - a term which no Christian should seriously dispute because the Bible itself describes God as being ONE and INFINITE. It thus emerges that your faith in every particular agrees with the description of God contained within the term "Oneness of Infinity" - but YOU have chosen to self-contradict and deny this simply on account of some imaginary feud with the proponent of the description - Mr. Deep Sight.

1. I am a Christian and I dispute that term. God describes Himself, His attributes and His nature in the bible. You only offer a god of your own imagining, an idol fashioned out of the desires of your heart.
2. There is no feud with you, imaginary or otherwise. Are you becoming paranoid on account of a rejection of your god?

Deep Sight:

Verily, the day will come when i will describe God as loving, just and perfect, and you will disagree - simply because it is i who states it.

1. How will your OOI become loving, just and perfect, seeing as these are personal attributes which OOI lacks? Or is this a sneak preview of the evolution of your paradigm?
2. We will disagree. Do you know why? Because of this:

Deu 13:1-3  If there arise among you a prophet (e.g the prophet of OOI), or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them; Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.

Deep Sight:

An intangible and infinite reality such as the Godhead is, CANNOT be reduced into ANY FORM WHATSOEVER - and that includes the form of a man.

The reason rests in the very ineffability, intangibility and infinity of the Godhead.

The finite CANNOT contain the infinite.

Your CANNOT is the language of a being who possesses knowledge of all of time and space, in short, a god! Does Deep Sight possess knowledge of all of time and space? The mystery of the Incarnation is a stumbling block to the Jews (and Muslims) and foolishness to the Greeks (rational educated minds like Deep Sight's):

1 Tim 3:16  And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: [size=16pt]God was manifest in the flesh,[/size] justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.