The Christian God, person, place, thing or a combination of all three?

General » Religion

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - The Christian God, person, place, thing or a combination of all three? (Page 1 of 2)

Posted: 8/9/2018 10:06:30 AM EDT

Any Defined answer?

After reading many passages, it seems like he is a combination, sort of, of all three, is my hypothesis wrong?

I am no Christian scholar.

My truth is the ideas from the Far East, God for us, if you can even call it that, is more of a place or thing and the less of a person.

@OldArmy

Posted: 8/9/2018 10:11:58 AM EDT

[#1]

He is a Person.

He created places and things.

Posted: 8/9/2018 10:15:04 AM EDT

[#2]

God is beyond the conceptual abilities of Man. We can only apply imperfect metaphors from our own frame of reference, which will - by definition - be incorrect.

And anyone who claims they understand God is either lying or hubristic.

Posted: 8/9/2018 10:41:35 AM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
Any Defined answer?

After reading many passages, it seems like he is a combination, sort of, of all three, is my hypothesis wrong?

I am no Christian scholar.

My truth is the ideas from the Far East, God for us, if you can even call it that, is more of a place or thing and the less of a person.

@OldArmy

View Quote

The problem with trying to "Define" God is that the act of defining is the act of setting the limits of something. Definition and "finite" come from the same roots. The Christian God is infinite, without limits. He can be described through negation and analogy and He reveals Himself through Scripture, but He is beyond definition.

He is not a place. A place is limited in space. The Christian God is omnipresent and is beyond space. He is also eternal and is beyond time.

He is not a thing. A thing has no personality or purpose. God has both.

He is a person. In fact, He is Three persons - Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

The Christian God relates to His people as Father, Brother, Husband, Savior, Protector, etc. All of these are personal relationships. The greatest command in Christianity is to LOVE God and we do so because He first LOVED us. That is a personal relationship.

Posted: 8/9/2018 10:47:20 AM EDT

[#4]

Quote History

Quoted:

The problem with trying to "Define" God is that the act of defining is the act of setting the limits of something. Definition and "finite" come from the same roots. The Christian God is infinite, without limits. He can be described through negation and analogy and He reveals Himself through Scripture, but He is beyond definition.

He is not a place. A place is limited in space. The Christian God is omnipresent and is beyond space. He is also eternal and is beyond time.

He is not a thing. A thing has no personality or purpose. God has both.

He is a person. In fact, He is Three persons - Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

The Christian God relates to His people as Father, Brother, Husband, Savior, Protector, etc. All of these are personal relationships. The greatest command in Christianity is to LOVE God and we do so because He first LOVED us. That is a personal relationship.

View Quote

Reminds me of the Dao/Tao

Now I think about it many religions have that same feeling about them

Posted: 8/9/2018 10:51:26 AM EDT

[#5]

Quote History

Quoted:

Reminds me of the Dao/Tao

Now I think about it many religions have that same feeling about them

View Quote

The Dao/Tao is closer to the Christian concept of the Will of God than God Himself. That said, Jesus did refer to Himself as "The Way" illustrating that it is difficult (impossible?) to separate the two.

As for the similarity, you might find C.S. Lewis's comments on the Tao interesting. Check out Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis

Posted: 8/9/2018 10:55:20 AM EDT

[#6]

Quote History

Quoted:

The Dao/Tao is closer to the Christian concept of the Will of God than God Himself. That said, Jesus did refer to Himself as "The Way" illustrating that it is difficult (impossible?) to separate the two.

As for the similarity, you might find C.S. Lewis's comments on the Tao interesting. Check out Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis

View Quote

The man that wrote Narnia has a way of words that's for true.

Posted: 8/9/2018 11:27:24 AM EDT

[#7]

Quote History

Quoted:

The man that wrote Narnia has a way of words that's for true.

View Quote

And that's not even his best work.

Posted: 8/9/2018 11:54:05 AM EDT

[#8]

The problem is so many false Christian's say this or that.

Let's first define what a Christian is. A Christian is a person who accepts Jesus as the Son of God the Father who as the perfect man willingly in his desire to obey God the Father paid for the sin of mankind on the cross, so all that believe in him and follow him and only through him will upon our death join God again in heaven.

God as Christians believe him the holy trinity, also referred to as The Triune God.

Anyone who calls himself a Christian and either does not believe this and or does not live the way Jesus teaches is NOT a Christian!

That does not mean Christian's are perfect, but sin no longer rules our hearts, in accepting Him and following his ways, He breaks the chains of sin on our hearts and we begin to live again in Him. It's truly amazing.

So yes, it's very hard to conceptualize as it goes beyond anything we have experienced in this life. I relate it to our government. 3 branches all equal in power and glory but different. That being God the father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit/Holy Ghost.

Edit: know I typed this up hastily on my lunch break (on my phone) PM any questions LittlePony, I don't know everything, I'm a young Christian but I'll share what I can to anyone that wants to hear it.

Posted: 8/9/2018 12:25:20 PM EDT

[#9]

Quote History

Quoted:

And that's not even his best work.

View Quote

Very, but it is what he is most known for

Posted: 8/9/2018 1:00:43 PM EDT

[#10]

Not a person, place, or thing. Unfathomable. Describe love so completely that there is nothing left to say. Impossible.

Christian definitions come from man. I have not met a single Christian that actually follows the teachings of Jesus, including myself. All of the Christians I have met follow man's interpretations of the words of Jesus which were written by men years after his death and resurrection.

Read up on all of the major religions of the world. Read the words of Jesus Christ as a seperate religion.

Christianity is a practice because it is unattainable.

Posted: 8/9/2018 1:11:19 PM EDT

[#11]

Quote History

Quoted:

Not a person, place, or thing. Unfathomable. Describe love so completely that there is nothing left to say. Impossible.

Christian definitions come from man. I have not met a single Christian that actually follows the teachings of Jesus, including myself. All of the Christians I have met follow man's interpretations of the words of Jesus which were written by men years after his death and resurrection.

Read up on all of the major religions of the world. Read the words of Jesus Christ as a seperate religion.

Christianity is a practice because it is unattainable.

View Quote

Many religions are, I have read a fair amount from Buddhism to Zoroastrianism, all are similar, all are different.

To touch Christ, Nirvana, Dao/Tao, or to breach the walls of the black egg, it would be to touch everything, once you have done such a thing you would be probably completely comatose yet conscious, you would probably lay on the ground, un moving, totally unresponsive to any physical sensation, and would probably starve to death just lying there.

To be that complete, very very few have ever gone there, and really the only people that have accomplished that in today's world and survived something like that, had a mind broken enough to begin with to deal with it.

Or they have done this to themselves as a ultimate statement to something just.

Posted: 8/9/2018 2:05:31 PM EDT

[#12]

There has to be more commentaries

Posted: 8/11/2018 10:13:02 PM EDT

[#13]

Your question has been answered above. Three manifestations of the same. Let US make man...

No one can wrap their heads around God any more than bacteria understands the human mind and spirit.

"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.

For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. "

The issue is that we want to fit God within a box of our own understanding...something we can relate to. It is simply not possible with our limited capacity. No more than we can comprehend an existence outside of space, time, and matter, visualization of 11 or even 4 dimensions (without mathematical equations), or infinite space and time. We have the hubris to swell our chests and pontificate when in reality we would do nothing more than fall on our faces in His presence.

Posted: 8/12/2018 11:38:17 AM EDT

[#14]

Persons.

Posted: 8/12/2018 12:49:30 PM EDT

[#15]

Quote History

Quoted:
The problem is so many false Christian's say this or that.

Let's first define what a Christian is. A Christian is a person who accepts Jesus as the Son of God the Father who as the perfect man willingly in his desire to obey God the Father paid for the sin of mankind on the cross, so all that believe in him and follow him and only through him will upon our death join God again in heaven.

God as Christians believe him the holy trinity, also referred to as The Triune God.

Anyone who calls himself a Christian and either does not believe this and or does not live the way Jesus teaches is NOT a Christian!

That does not mean Christian's are perfect, but sin no longer rules our hearts, in accepting Him and following his ways, He breaks the chains of sin on our hearts and we begin to live again in Him. It's truly amazing.

So yes, it's very hard to conceptualize as it goes beyond anything we have experienced in this life. I relate it to our government. 3 branches all equal in power and glory but different. That being God the father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit/Holy Ghost.

Edit: know I typed this up hastily on my lunch break (on my phone) PM any questions LittlePony, I don't know everything, I'm a young Christian but I'll share what I can to anyone that wants to hear it.

View Quote

A very simple analogy would be to think of water. Water is made up of Hydrogen and Oxygen.

Water can be liquid, ice, or water vapor. It’s still hydrogen and oxygen. Three separate states but one compound.

God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Three separate but one God.

Posted: 8/12/2018 1:05:02 PM EDT

[#16]

I prefer the analogy of three different colored balloons filled with the same air. Nothing's perfect in describing God, but that's what I find helpful.they are all air in different balloons, but all balloons, existing at the same time in 3.

Posted: 8/12/2018 5:04:24 PM EDT

[#17]

Quote History

Quoted:

A very simple analogy would be to think of water. Water is made up of Hydrogen and Oxygen.

Water can be liquid, ice, or water vapor. It’s still hydrogen and oxygen. Three separate states but one compound.

God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Three separate but one God.

View Quote

Like.

Posted: 8/12/2018 5:55:19 PM EDT

[#18]

hmmm

Posted: 8/12/2018 8:05:06 PM EDT

[#19]

Quote History

Quoted:
Like.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:

A very simple analogy would be to think of water. Water is made up of Hydrogen and Oxygen.

Water can be liquid, ice, or water vapor. It’s still hydrogen and oxygen. Three separate states but one compound.

God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Three separate but one God.

Like.

That's actually modalism and early heresy.

The problem with nearly all analogies is they lead to a heretical understanding of the trinity.

Here's a good tongue-in-cheek critique of the most common analogies and the problems with each of them.

St. Patrick's Bad Analogies

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQLfgaUoQCw

Posted: 8/12/2018 8:13:58 PM EDT

[#20]

Quote History

Quoted:

That's actually modalism and early heresy.

The problem with nearly all analogies is they lead to a heretical understanding of the trinity.

Here's a good tongue-in-cheek critique of the most common analogies and the problems with each of them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQLfgaUoQCw

View Quote

That's a cute video. I don't subscribe to the notion of "heresy". No man has the power or authority to decide that. Peter is looooong gone.

Posted: 8/12/2018 9:51:00 PM EDT

[#21]

I liked the video. It’s a hard thing to describe. I remember going to a class once when they used the dad,father,son analogy. It was years before I learned enough to understand that that was not correct. Like most stuff in Christianity, these things aren’t new and have been discussed and debated for many years. I have absolutely no doubt BR76 is not a modelist.

Modalism defined

That is why I prefer the balloon analogy, even though it’s not perfect either, because all 3 are present at once while being of the same substance but different.

Posted: 8/13/2018 12:11:25 AM EDT

[#22]

Quote History

Quoted:
I liked the video. It’s a hard thing to describe. I remember going to a class once when they used the dad,father,son analogy. It was years before I learned enough to understand that that was not correct. Like most stuff in Christianity, these things aren’t new and have been discussed and debated for many years. I have absolutely no doubt BR76 is not a modelist.

Modalism defined

That is why I prefer the balloon analogy, even though it’s not perfect either, because all 3 are present at once while being of the same substance but different.

View Quote

It's definitely better than most. I think it might be accused of Tritheism because it is three separate balloons, but you've kind of covered that with stressing they're the same substance.

Posted: 8/17/2018 10:59:03 PM EDT

[#23]

Quote History

Quoted:

That's a cute video. I don't subscribe to the notion of "heresy". No man has the power or authority to decide that. Peter is looooong gone.

View Quote

Heresy is nothing more than a choice to follow the way of humans rather than the way of God. The word means choice.

Posted: 8/17/2018 11:06:40 PM EDT

[#24]

Quote History

Quoted:
Many religions are, I have read a fair amount from Buddhism to Zoroastrianism, all are similar, all are different.

To touch Christ, Nirvana, Dao/Tao, or to breach the walls of the black egg, it would be to touch everything, once you have done such a thing you would be probably completely comatose yet conscious, you would probably lay on the ground, un moving, totally unresponsive to any physical sensation, and would probably starve to death just lying there.

To be that complete, very very few have ever gone there, and really the only people that have accomplished that in today's world and survived something like that, had a mind broken enough to begin with to deal with it.

Or they have done this to themselves as a ultimate statement to something just.

https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/The-burning-monk-1963-small.jpg

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:

Not a person, place, or thing. Unfathomable. Describe love so completely that there is nothing left to say. Impossible.

Christian definitions come from man. I have not met a single Christian that actually follows the teachings of Jesus, including myself. All of the Christians I have met follow man's interpretations of the words of Jesus which were written by men years after his death and resurrection.

Read up on all of the major religions of the world. Read the words of Jesus Christ as a seperate religion.

Christianity is a practice because it is unattainable.

Many religions are, I have read a fair amount from Buddhism to Zoroastrianism, all are similar, all are different.

To touch Christ, Nirvana, Dao/Tao, or to breach the walls of the black egg, it would be to touch everything, once you have done such a thing you would be probably completely comatose yet conscious, you would probably lay on the ground, un moving, totally unresponsive to any physical sensation, and would probably starve to death just lying there.

To be that complete, very very few have ever gone there, and really the only people that have accomplished that in today's world and survived something like that, had a mind broken enough to begin with to deal with it.

Or they have done this to themselves as a ultimate statement to something just.

https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/The-burning-monk-1963-small.jpg

There is an important subtlety here.
Salvation is not attainable by human endeavor. Likeness to Christ Jesus is not attainable by human endeavor. In that sense it is truly not attainable. It is however given, and can be received by The Spirit. We will not be left empty, will receive everything if we but accept it. Most world religions require the adherent to do something to earn or work to a state of salvation or enlightenment. It ranges to seeking personal perfection all the way to completely emptying ones self before being able to receive. In Christianity, you simply receive by the grace of God. I have a friend who tells me he's "Chasing after Jesus so hard", and I keep trying to tell him, "stop running and let him catch you".

Posted: 9/19/2018 5:30:58 AM EDT

[#25]

Quote History

Quoted:
God is beyond the conceptual abilities of Man. We can only apply imperfect metaphors from our own frame of reference, which will - by definition - be incorrect.

And anyone who claims they understand God is either lying or hubristic.

View Quote

We obviously can't know everything about God, because we can't comprehend the infinite.

However, we can know what He has revealed of Himself to us.

We don't get to define God. If you had a group of people in a room and they all said, "I believe in God," they could all be saying different things. To ask them who God is, what comes out is "This is who I want God to be."

They would go on to describe the characteristics they have an affinity for, and it turns into an exercise of "and man created God in his image..." These people can't all be right, because the results would range from contradictory to silly.

The central point is that God defines Himself. He has revealed Himself to us in the Bible. He obviously has not revealed all of His attributes and person, but He has given us enough.

Posted: 9/19/2018 2:38:20 PM EDT

[#26]

I posted this in a GD thread that seemed to help people understand:

Imagine a supercomputer that is self-aware, and has given itself the task of creating a virtual world within its logical system, a self-contained MMORPG if you will. In this world, the computer creates other software artificial intelligence, who live and die in the simulated world. To them, it is 100% reality. In the middle of it, the Supercomputer decides to enter into the 'game' itself and live as one of the AIs, is 'born' into the world, and 'dies' in the world (they still exist as data). In fact, all of the manifestations before and after this are also using the very same code, or logic, that was made into an AI in the game and was used to generate the world in the first place. In a way, the manifestation is very much like computer firmware, or software, that is integral to the Supercomputer itself. Is it then an AI, or is it the SC? It's 100% both. This is what Christ essentially is according to the Bible. Jesus is how the SC created and interacts with its creation. Much like how firmware interacts with software on behalf of the hardware - yet the hardware and the firmware are still one and the same, only one is an expression within the system (in this case the universe) and one is outside of it, yet one is integral to the other from the view of the software.
The SC's 'Representative AI' is still, in fact, the SC in AI form. That is what John 1:1-3 and 14 are saying. The Word, i.e. "Logos" or 'Code' that was with God and is God and created all that was made became flesh. Much like a foam cup being set within a foam cup.

The difference is that in our reality, this Supercomputer isn't a material object generating virtual reality, it's a non-material mind that generates the material reality (as quantum physics suggests) that allows us to generate virtual realities using logical data. We call it God.

When we place our faith in Jesus, He writes Himself in us per Galatians 2:20 and Ephesians 1:13-14. We've been encapsulated and moved to his VLAN.

Posted: 9/20/2018 2:06:42 PM EDT

[#27]

Quote History

Quoted:

That's a cute video. I don't subscribe to the notion of "heresy". No man has the power or authority to decide that. Peter is looooong gone.

View Quote

What?

Posted: 9/20/2018 2:08:08 PM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:
Any Defined answer?

View Quote

If a definition would suffice, then it's not 'God.'

Posted: 9/20/2018 3:01:16 PM EDT

[#29]

Quote History

Quoted:
I posted this in a GD thread that seemed to help people understand:

Imagine a supercomputer that is self-aware, and has given itself the task of creating a virtual world within its logical system, a self-contained MMORPG if you will. In this world, the computer creates other software artificial intelligence, who live and die in the simulated world. To them, it is 100% reality. In the middle of it, the Supercomputer decides to enter into the 'game' itself and live as one of the AIs, is 'born' into the world, and 'dies' in the world (they still exist as data). In fact, all of the manifestations before and after this are also using the very same code, or logic, that was made into an AI in the game and was used to generate the world in the first place. In a way, the manifestation is very much like computer firmware, or software, that is integral to the Supercomputer itself. Is it then an AI, or is it the SC? It's 100% both. This is what Christ essentially is according to the Bible. Jesus is how the SC created and interacts with its creation. Much like how firmware interacts with software on behalf of the hardware - yet the hardware and the firmware are still one and the same, only one is an expression within the system (in this case the universe) and one is outside of it, yet one is integral to the other from the view of the software.

The SC's 'Representative AI' is still, in fact, the SC in AI form. That is what John 1:1-3 and 14 are saying. The Word, i.e. "Logos" or 'Code' that was with God and is God and created all that was made became flesh. Much like a foam cup being set within a foam cup.

The difference is that in our reality, this Supercomputer isn't a material object generating virtual reality, it's a non-material mind that generates the material reality (as quantum physics suggests) that allows us to generate virtual realities using logical data. We call it God.

When we place our faith in Jesus, He writes Himself in us per Galatians 2:20 and Ephesians 1:13-14. We've been encapsulated and moved to his VLAN.

View Quote

This analogy is of course Sabellianism (Modalism). Which is the belief that God is one person who has revealed himself in three forms.

Posted: 9/20/2018 3:32:22 PM EDT

[#30]

Quote History

Quoted:
This analogy is of course Sabellianism (Modalism). Which is the belief that God is one person who has revealed himself in three forms.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
I posted this in a GD thread that seemed to help people understand:

Imagine a supercomputer that is self-aware, and has given itself the task of creating a virtual world within its logical system, a self-contained MMORPG if you will. In this world, the computer creates other software artificial intelligence, who live and die in the simulated world. To them, it is 100% reality. In the middle of it, the Supercomputer decides to enter into the 'game' itself and live as one of the AIs, is 'born' into the world, and 'dies' in the world (they still exist as data). In fact, all of the manifestations before and after this are also using the very same code, or logic, that was made into an AI in the game and was used to generate the world in the first place. In a way, the manifestation is very much like computer firmware, or software, that is integral to the Supercomputer itself. Is it then an AI, or is it the SC? It's 100% both. This is what Christ essentially is according to the Bible. Jesus is how the SC created and interacts with its creation. Much like how firmware interacts with software on behalf of the hardware - yet the hardware and the firmware are still one and the same, only one is an expression within the system (in this case the universe) and one is outside of it, yet one is integral to the other from the view of the software.

The SC's 'Representative AI' is still, in fact, the SC in AI form. That is what John 1:1-3 and 14 are saying. The Word, i.e. "Logos" or 'Code' that was with God and is God and created all that was made became flesh. Much like a foam cup being set within a foam cup.

The difference is that in our reality, this Supercomputer isn't a material object generating virtual reality, it's a non-material mind that generates the material reality (as quantum physics suggests) that allows us to generate virtual realities using logical data. We call it God.

When we place our faith in Jesus, He writes Himself in us per Galatians 2:20 and Ephesians 1:13-14. We've been encapsulated and moved to his VLAN.

This analogy is of course Sabellianism (Modalism). Which is the belief that God is one person who has revealed himself in three forms.

Nope, the hardware, firmware and operating system all co-exist and operate at the same time. They are still one system with three persons. One does not stop then the other one starts.

Posted: 9/20/2018 4:37:45 PM EDT

[#31]

Quote History

Quoted:
Nope, the hardware, firmware and operating system all co-exist and operate at the same time. They are still one system with three persons. One does not stop then the other one starts.

View Quote

That's nice, but that is not what makes your analogy modalism. The language you use to explain your analogy is nearly identical to the definition of modalism.

-To quote your explanation: "The SC's 'Representative AI' is still, in fact, the SC in AI form."

-Or in other words: God (The SC)'s representative AI is still in fact the God (the SC) in AI Form".

-Modalism states that God is a single person who reveals Himself in three modes or forms. (from the Christian Apologetics Research Ministry)

Your additional data above errs in other ways. In your analogy, Jesus is the AI, therefore he is not any of the three persons in your Trinity (i.e. the hardware, firmware and operating system).

Posted: 9/20/2018 5:38:12 PM EDT

[#32]

Quote History

Quoted:
That's nice, but that is not what makes your analogy modalism. The language you use to explain your analogy is nearly identical to the definition of modalism.

-To quote your explanation: "The SC's 'Representative AI' is still, in fact, the SC in AI form."

-Or in other words: God (The SC)'s representative AI is still in fact the God (the SC) in AI Form".

-Modalism states that God is a single person who reveals Himself in three modes or forms. (from the Christian Apologetics Research Ministry)

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
Nope, the hardware, firmware and operating system all co-exist and operate at the same time. They are still one system with three persons. One does not stop then the other one starts.

That's nice, but that is not what makes your analogy modalism. The language you use to explain your analogy is nearly identical to the definition of modalism.

-To quote your explanation: "The SC's 'Representative AI' is still, in fact, the SC in AI form."

-Or in other words: God (The SC)'s representative AI is still in fact the God (the SC) in AI Form".

-Modalism states that God is a single person who reveals Himself in three modes or forms. (from the Christian Apologetics Research Ministry)

You'd have to assume that I meant that the SC couldn't be the SC and an AI at the same time. There's no mode changing nor did I state such.

Your additional data above errs in other ways. In your analogy, Jesus is the AI, therefore he is not any of the three persons in your Trinity (i.e. the hardware, firmware and operating system).

Again, you're trying to dig up fault by reading into the analogy and twisting it. Knowing that you deny the eternal deity of Christ, I will state that you have an agenda here.

Again, the AI isn't a separate entity per se, it's the SC that has entered AI form within the created world.

Posted: 9/20/2018 6:00:01 PM EDT

[#33]

Hmmm

Posted: 9/20/2018 9:02:01 PM EDT

[#34]

Quote History

Quoted:
If a definition would suffice, then it's not 'God.'

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
Any Defined answer?

If a definition would suffice, then it's not 'God.'

TWIRE is correct.

We are talking about the Creator of the Universe. He created EVERYTHING.

Think about that.

He is beyond our understanding at the present time.

Posted: 9/20/2018 9:19:49 PM EDT

[#35]

An egg is a good example. It has three parts; the shell, the whites and the yoke. Three separate parts that are needed to make an egg. Holy Spirit, Jesus the Son and God the Father. All separate and distinct parts that make up the God head.

Posted: 9/20/2018 10:18:24 PM EDT

[#36]

Quote History

Quoted:
An egg is a good example. It has three parts; the shell, the whites and the yoke. Three separate parts that are needed to make an egg. Holy Spirit, Jesus the Son and God the Father. All separate and distinct parts that make up the God head.

View Quote

That one doesn't really work. By themselves they aren't an egg. They are a part of an egg.

Posted: 9/20/2018 10:28:08 PM EDT

[#37]

Quote History

Quoted:

That one doesn't really work. By themselves they aren't an egg. They are a part of an egg.

View Quote

Yep. Trithiesm. The egg is made up of three distinct and unalike parts and unalike substances.

Posted: 9/20/2018 11:11:05 PM EDT

[#38]

Quote History

Quoted:
You'd have to assume that I meant that the SC couldn't be the SC and an AI at the same time.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:
You'd have to assume that I meant that the SC couldn't be the SC and an AI at the same time.

I didn't have to assume anything. In your analogy, the SC (God) changed "form" which is in line with the definition of Modalism.

Quoted:
Again, you're trying to dig up fault by reading into the analogy and twisting it. Knowing that you deny the eternal deity of Christ, I will state that you have an agenda here.

Yes, I have an agenda. You have an agenda also. Having an agenda doesn't make the logic true or false.

If I twisted your analogy, show me where.

Quoted:
Again, the AI isn't a separate entity per se, it's the SC that has entered AI form within the created world.

If you can't spot the modalism, I underlined it and colored it red for you.

The fault lies in the fact that your analogy denies your own doctrine, and it is a doctrine we both agree on, i.e. Jesus not the same person as the Father. The sentence you type above rejects this very fact.

Posted: 9/21/2018 7:11:37 AM EDT

[#39]

Quote History

Quoted:
I didn't have to assume anything. In your analogy, the SC (God) changed "form" which is in line with the definition of Modalism.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
You'd have to assume that I meant that the SC couldn't be the SC and an AI at the same time.

I didn't have to assume anything. In your analogy, the SC (God) changed "form" which is in line with the definition of Modalism.

No, I did not say that you're trying to assume that.

Quoted:
Again, you're trying to dig up fault by reading into the analogy and twisting it. Knowing that you deny the eternal deity of Christ, I will state that you have an agenda here.

Yes, I have an agenda. You have an agenda also. Having an agenda doesn't make the logic true or false.

Yet it shows that it's not about the meaning I was trying to convey, but how what I was conveying can serve your purposes.

If I twisted your analogy, show me where.

Already have.

Quoted:
Again, the AI isn't a separate entity per se, it's the SC that has entered AI form within the created world.

If you can't spot the modalism, I underlined it and colored it red for you.

The fault lies in the fact that your analogy denies your own doctrine, and it is a doctrine we both agree on, i.e. Jesus not the same person as the Father. The sentence you type above rejects this very fact.

I disagree. Just as a real-life player "enters" into a character in-game, he still is a real-life person and has not changed modes. A computer can run several operations at once, and for God to be God, then He must be able to run more simultaneous operations than a computer. See the first principles here.

Modalism teaches that God shifts modes between the three members of the Trinity. I'm not saying the SC shifted modes, I'm saying it entered the world in an AI form. A seminary professor put it this way: what John 1:1-3 and 14 is saying, is like holding two foam cups, one above another. One is God and one is man. The Greek philosophers were trying to debate the concept of the Logos, what we might call a "Code" today, to describe the rationality and regularity of the natural world. Philo, a Jewish philosopher, made the argument that the Logos is something semi-divine, but not God that sits between God and man and is how God interacts with man. An illustration is to put something in-between the foam cups to represent the Logos. This concept is in the Talmud, but it's called the Metatron.

John, however, takes the concept and removes the object in-between God and man, by stating that "God was the Logos". He then states the Logos became flesh and dwelt with us. In the illustration, God's foam cup is inverted and placed within man's cup. That is the hypostatic union illustrated. That's what I am getting at with the SC analogy - and that's ALL I'm getting at, so you can take your agenda and pound sand with it.

Posted: 9/21/2018 2:11:56 PM EDT

[#40]

Quote History

Quoted:
I disagree. Just as a real-life player "enters" into a character in-game, he still is a real-life person and has not changed modes. A computer can run several operations at once, and for God to be God, then He must be able to run more simultaneous operations than a computer. See the first principles here.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:
I disagree. Just as a real-life player "enters" into a character in-game, he still is a real-life person and has not changed modes. A computer can run several operations at once, and for God to be God, then He must be able to run more simultaneous operations than a computer. See the first principles here.

The first condition of Modalism is that that God is described as one person. That condition is met. God is described here as a single person using the singular pronouns of "he".

Quoted:
Modalism teaches that God shifts modes between the three members of the Trinity. I'm not saying the SC shifted modes, I'm saying it entered the world in an AI form.

The second condition of Modalism is that God changes mode or form. This condition is clearly met. Here you describe God as changing form.

Quoted:
John, however, takes the concept and removes the object in-between God and man, by stating that "God was the Logos". He then states the Logos became flesh and dwelt with us. In the illustration, God's foam cup is inverted and placed within man's cup.

John 1:1 is a very hotly debated and interesting topic to research. One topic that there is broad agreement on is that John tread a very fine line and specifically did NOT say "God was the Logos". If John made the logos and God convertible terms, he would be directly affirming modalism. While grammatically, the simplest rendering is similar to yours, there is a key difference, i.e. "a god was the logos" or "god was the logos" with the intentional lower case g in god (see "Putting Jesus in his Place" Page 141-142 and many others). This is why most translations render the phrase it differently than you did.

You can do your own research here with sources that you trust. An explanation can be found in Greek Grammarian Bruce Metzger's book "Greek Grammar and the New Testament" - Page 267-268 (you should be able to find the pages via google books online). AT Robertson made this point several times, but I don't recall where. Another great source would be the NET bible notes for John 1:1 which are also available online.

Posted: 9/21/2018 2:31:11 PM EDT

[#41]

Quote History

Quoted:
The first condition of Modalism is that that God is described as one person. That condition is met. God is described here as a single person using the singular pronouns of "he".

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
I disagree. Just as a real-life player "enters" into a character in-game, he still is a real-life person and has not changed modes. A computer can run several operations at once, and for God to be God, then He must be able to run more simultaneous operations than a computer. See the first principles here.

The first condition of Modalism is that that God is described as one person. That condition is met. God is described here as a single person using the singular pronouns of "he".

No. I clearly defined God as one God with three persons, using computer terminology.

Quoted:
Modalism teaches that God shifts modes between the three members of the Trinity. I'm not saying the SC shifted modes, I'm saying it entered the world in an AI form.

The second condition of Modalism is that God changes mode or form. This condition is clearly met. Here you describe God as changing form.

Again. No. The SC and all it's component parts are still there. This is a virtual thing. Much like a computer retains it's hardware, firmware and operating system when it runs a script.

I take it you're not a computer guy. That's okay - what's not okay is the deliberate agenda-driven insistence that I meant something that I didn't mean.

Quoted:
John, however, takes the concept and removes the object in-between God and man, by stating that "God was the Logos". He then states the Logos became flesh and dwelt with us. In the illustration, God's foam cup is inverted and placed within man's cup.

John 1:1 is a very hotly debated and interesting topic to research. One topic that there is broad agreement on is that John tread a very fine line and specifically did NOT say "God was the Logos".

You don't know John 1 very well. Here's an interlinear translation of John 1:

1:1 In the beginning was the Word (Logos) and the Word was with God, and God was the Word.

If John made the logos and God convertible terms, he would be directly affirming modalism. While grammatically, the simplest rendering is similar to yours, there is a key difference, i.e. "a god was the logos" or "god was the logos" with the intentional lower case g in god (see "Putting Jesus in his Place" Page 141-142 and many others). This is why most translations render the phrase it differently than you did.

Nevermind that John would have written in uncial text, using no lower case letters, so your argument is bunk.

The only argument for modalism is coming from you - because you cannot accept that God can do multiple things at once or be multiple persons at once. It sounds like all you're trying to disprove is the idea that Jesus is God, so you then must constrain all ideas to modalism because you cannot accept anything but an either/or possibility, and you must argue that Jesus isn't God in the flesh like John said He was.

The problem is your limited thinking, not scripture or my analogy.

Posted: 9/24/2018 12:50:40 AM EDT

[#42]

Lil Pony, have you read much of the four gospels? Most Christian religions believe either the Nicean creed or Athanasian creed. Neither are in the Bible.

The four gospels will give you a better understanding just reading them. Jesus constantly says he was "sent" by the Father. He does not claim to be the Father, but rather one with the Father.
I'll give you a challenge. Buy a cheap KJV bible or just the NT. take 3 colored pencils of choice. Read the four Gospels. Mark the verses that say things like "the Father sent me, I and my Father, I do the will of him who sent me, I do the will of my Father", etc Mark them in one color. Then with a second color mark those that say "I and my Father are one" or similar phrases. Then with the third mark any that you may be unsure which category to put them in. Then post your results.

I will tell you up front I am Mormon and we don't believe the "creeds." From the Doctrine and Covenants, a book considered scripture in the faith.

Section 130 verse 22. The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.

And from the 12 Articles of Faith from the church. "1. We believe in God the Eternal Father, and in his Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost." (Note, all three and no other unneeded classifications or manifestations)

Straight up, no need for some theologian to explain it. What you'll find in the Gospels.

Posted: 10/25/2018 12:19:34 PM EDT

[#43]

Quote History

Quoted:
Lil Pony, have you read much of the four gospels? Most Christian religions believe either the Nicean creed or Athanasian creed. Neither are in the Bible.

The four gospels will give you a better understanding just reading them. Jesus constantly says he was "sent" by the Father. He does not claim to be the Father, but rather one with the Father.
I'll give you a challenge. Buy a cheap KJV bible or just the NT. take 3 colored pencils of choice. Read the four Gospels. Mark the verses that say things like "the Father sent me, I and my Father, I do the will of him who sent me, I do the will of my Father", etc Mark them in one color. Then with a second color mark those that say "I and my Father are one" or similar phrases. Then with the third mark any that you may be unsure which category to put them in. Then post your results.

I will tell you up front I am Mormon and we don't believe the "creeds." From the Doctrine and Covenants, a book considered scripture in the faith.

Section 130 verse 22. The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.

And from the 12 Articles of Faith from the church. "1. We believe in God the Eternal Father, and in his Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost." (Note, all three and no other unneeded classifications or manifestations)

Straight up, no need for some theologian to explain it. What you'll find in the Gospels.

View Quote

Interesting

Posted: 10/25/2018 12:35:25 PM EDT

[#44]

Quote History

Quoted:
Interesting

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
Lil Pony, have you read much of the four gospels? Most Christian religions believe either the Nicean creed or Athanasian creed. Neither are in the Bible.

The four gospels will give you a better understanding just reading them. Jesus constantly says he was "sent" by the Father. He does not claim to be the Father, but rather one with the Father.
I'll give you a challenge. Buy a cheap KJV bible or just the NT. take 3 colored pencils of choice. Read the four Gospels. Mark the verses that say things like "the Father sent me, I and my Father, I do the will of him who sent me, I do the will of my Father", etc Mark them in one color. Then with a second color mark those that say "I and my Father are one" or similar phrases. Then with the third mark any that you may be unsure which category to put them in. Then post your results.

I will tell you up front I am Mormon and we don't believe the "creeds." From the Doctrine and Covenants, a book considered scripture in the faith.

Section 130 verse 22. The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.

And from the 12 Articles of Faith from the church. "1. We believe in God the Eternal Father, and in his Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost." (Note, all three and no other unneeded classifications or manifestations)

Straight up, no need for some theologian to explain it. What you'll find in the Gospels.

Interesting

Then read John 1:1-14 and see that Christ is God in the flesh.

Basically, imagine the universe as one big computer run game, only the computer running it is self-aware. It creates its own little intelligences (us) within the game, who rebel and follow their own destructive paths. So the computer decides to enter the game itself as a character and act as one of them - that is Jesus Christ. The computer is still running the game and is still a computer, but part of it has taken on the function of living within the game. This analogy isn't perfect but it's close.

The Father is spirit (John 4:24) not flesh and blood. In Mormonism, "God" is a created being, which means that he is contingent, and not actually God. In the Bible, and in Judeo-Christian understanding, God is a necessary, maximally-great Being. It cannot be physical, and it must be eternal, i.e. always existing.

Here are some links that explore Christian philosophy on the nature of God:
https://chab123.wordpress.com/2011/08/09/first-principles-and-gods-existence/
https://christianarticlesblog.wordpress.com/2015/11/11/first-principles-2/

This guy explains it in a sermon here: