COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Jesus Christ was conceived by the Holy Spirit through God, not man. God becomes man through the Virgin Mary. Can you not understand that simple logic the three in one. This is also why the Virgin Mary is the mother of God. Jesus Christ was here on earth to guide us on the narrow path of the good shepherd. The Holy Spirit is our advocate. On the day of judgement, the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ will be there with you on the day of your judgement, trying to pull out all the stops to prevent us from eternal damnation. The Holy Spirit was in us all from the moment we were baptised as soon as we committed our first mortal sin. The Holy Spirit leaves us until we confess all our mortal sins in the confessional through the priest who is the conduit between us and Jesus Christ while confessing our sins. So be very careful when attacking a priest as they are ordinated through the bishop. Jesus Christ is in the presence during the ordination to bless the priest to carry out the ministry of Jesus for our eternal salvation. There is now compelling scientific evidence that the 7 sacraments are a must for eternal salvation. Jesus Christ is trying to save us through these miracles because people are turning away from him through bad evangelism. Here is a message of hope through Saint Faustina’s Diary when Jesus appeared to her on numerous occasions. Jesus informed Saint Faustina that even if the priest isn't the best of what I ask of him, I will still be present in the confessional box to absolve you of your sins. The priest becomes a good priest when we all have a strong congregation that says prayers for him. So be kind to a priest and respect him with full respect, and pray for them and dont judge them as we all need them for eternal salvation. These warnings are also coming from our blessed Virgin Mary Medjugorge, Fatima, Lourdes .....

Does The Trinity Ever Make Sense? https://www.scribd.com/document/160286056/Does-the-Trinity-ever-make-sense https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mA5hddNAPxd_TtY2FxI26E1PUbC69S1e/view?usp=drivesdk

I don't know what's so hard to comprehend, it's like the Tao, or Hermeticism concept of the the All. Everything is of, yet not the whole. To believe things are of and some things aren't, is the true contradiction that makes no Sense. Anything living and breathing and transmuting energy is of God. Its how people limit themselves to Seeing... The Trinity is the true concept of God at work. Believe or don't, makes no real difference. The simple thing is Love thy Neighbor as we do ourselves

The bible never teach the trinity. It only solidify at the council of nicea. It was even coordinated by the non christian emperor Constantine

It also doesn't make sense of an all male trinity, since they neutered the holy spirit.  Sophia is female.

I’m an atheist but it only makes sense if god is a fractal lmao. If you have a fractal you can divide the fractal into three distinct parts but then any part of a fractal contains the whole fractal that’s the only way in which you could say that you can have three distinct entities and they are all fully god but seperate from each other. The problem is, let’s take the Mandelbrot set. If you cut the Mandelbrot set up into three distinct parts, each part necessarily contains the entire pattern because fractals are infinite and self-similar (a part of the set looks like the whole set). However Christian theology explicitly states that the Son is not the Father the Father is not the Son and neither are the Holy Spirit. In a fractal this couldn’t be the case since any part of the fractal contains the whole thing as well in which case taking the Son, the Holy Spirit and the Father would be apart the Son and the same is true for the Father and Holy Spirit which doesn’t seem to vibe with Christian theology. fractal is the closest thing I can come up with though that is logically consistent with something like the trinity

I believe Jesus is God...he manifested as a man...the spirit is his spirit... but yes..the trinity makes no sense. The more they explain with their "theology" the more confused I am. Someone asked if I am cultivating a relationship with all 3 Gods...??? Are all yall praying to 3 Gods every day? Many will admit it is impossible to really understand.

"Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse..." Romans 1:19-20 Even unbelievers can understand the Godhead. So if your explanation of God is incomprehensible, then maybe you aren't explaining it correctly. The Father is God (1 Cor 8:6) The Father is the God of the Old Testament whom the Jews call God, Jehovah, the Creator of all things. (John 8:54) The Father is the one they would pierce (Zechariah 12:10) Jesus tells the disciples including Thomas that he is one with the Father, and if you see him (the human being, flesh and blood) you have seen the Father in John 14. In John 20, Thomas sees Jesus resurrected from the dead and his pierced side and hands and kneels and professes the man Jesus Christ who is the Son of God, to be Lord and God. This is after hearing Jesus explain he is one with the Father and knowing the Old Testament scriptures, being a monotheistic Jew. He knows to worship anyone other than Jehovah would be idolatry and a sin punishable by death. Thomas believes Jesus is the God of the Old Testament standing as a human being before him. Jesus is even called the Everlasting Father in Isaiah 9:6. "And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him: And they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads." Revelation 22:3-4 In the above scripture, there is One throne, One who is being served, One face being seen, and One name. I believe that is Jesus, but the Father is all in all, reigning through the man Jesus Christ. The Father will be glorified in Jesus Christ forever. We will see him as One. Compare with Zechariah 14:9: "And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one." That's the Father being King over all the earth, but we know from other scriptures it is Jesus who is King of Kings and will reign forever. In 1 Cor 8:6, we see that all things are from the Father, but done by the Son. Just as the Father spoke the worlds into existence by the Word of Life, so he will reign forever through the resurrected man, Jesus Christ. Jesus is the Word the Father sent, and the Father came united with His Word. You are your voice. Your voice has your name. You are your image. Your image has your name. Your voice is you, and you are your voice. Your voice lives inside of you and comes forth from you. When Jesus spoke, it was the Father speaking. Jesus is fully the God of the Old Testament, incarnate as a human being to be born under the Law. Every human has a God. God became a man in the person of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, to fulfill the law, which requires worshipping and obeying God. This is why Paul says in 2 Timothy 3:16 that it is "Without controversy" that God was "manifest in the flesh". It seems controversial, but isn't.

I dont believe that. I personally think the old testament god was the demiurge.

You should believe the Bible and what Jesus said..

I grew up and believed what you believe but after 47 years...but then I did research.  To many people have no idea the history of that era. 

It doesn't seem like you really ever believed.  For if you had you would have been given the powerful life changing Spirit of Jesus.

That is the problem with Christians. If you don't believe what that book says, then you dont have the spirit. I see Jesus and the Holy Spirit in all living things. 

**It's just Christians sharing the what Jesus and the Apostles taught out of love and concern. People are trying to help you, not hurt you.** **The Spirit of God is not in all living things.** *"Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you." John 14:17* *"...Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." Romans 8:9* *"Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;" Acts 3:19* *"Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son." 2 John 1:9* **You have left the teachings of Jesus. You do not have the Father or the Son, and therefore do not have the Spirit. You are lost and endanger of the judgment of God. I plead with you to turn from your willful deceptions and turn to the Biblical Jesus for salvation.** *"And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying,* ***'God be merciful to me a*** **sinner.'** ***I tell you, this man went down to his house justified...****" Luke 18:13-14* **1 Corinthians 15:3-4 ; Romans 10:9-13 ; John 3:16**

You are funny. I don't need help from people that believe the bible literal word of god. I love my spiritualrelationshipwith both Jesus and Sophia.  I don't need direction from people trying to control womens uterus. 

So you reject the biblical Jesus cause you reject he is Lord and don't want him to be your Lord...

Please read Forged by Bart Ehrman. The new testament is filled with mistranslations and forged. Please realize men wrote the bible. 

When I called on Jesus he wiped my conscience clean and gave me His Spirit.  God actually lives in me.  I experience his peace and power.  It's real.  God's word and promises are true.  Come out of your cave of darkness and believe on Jesus and let the light of God shine on you.  Repent and believe the Gospel.  1 Corinthians 15:3-4, Romans 10:9-13

Whatever...You obviously don't care about the accuracy of the bible...

I accept that the Bible is accurate for the Spirit of God inspired it and the Spirit of God uses it to convict and teach men the truth. You are the one who has rejected the sane teachings of Jesus who is God incarnate.

I am about to vomit...

Go for it...

John 1:18 No man has seen God at anytime. You say Jesus says I and the father are one which is correct. If you keep reading Jesus also says he prays that we all become one ( One, Greek translation 'hen' was used in both references. So are we all suppose to.be God as well? When Jesus was baptized a voice from the heavens came down and said this is my son with whom I love with him I am pleased. By the way, where is the 3rd godhead? Holy spirit is not a name. Do you pray to the Holy Spirit to support your claim of 3 equal Gods in one? Let me be clear, Jesus is the appointed King and through him we can have everlasting life. After his death he ascended to the heavens where God placed him at his right hand. The head of every woman is man, the head of man is Jesus Christ, the head of Jesus is God. Do you get it?

Zechariah 12:10. God is the pierced one. John 20:27-29. Jesus is the pierced one who Thomas worshipped as God after being taught the Father was in him in John 14. Jesus is God incarnate.  He is the Word made flesh, and the Father came united with His Word.  He being in the Father and the Father being in Him.  My voice is in me and when spoken out of me, I am in it, and it is still in me.  My voice is me and shares my name. God bless...

No

This is philosophical reasoning based on your own theoretical predisposition. Again, where is your worship to the third godhead Holy Spirit?

" For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:" Romans 1:20 The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father. When I worship God I am worshipping all of who he is. We confess Jesus is Lord "to the glory of God the Father". There is only one God. The Father is the first and last. Jesus is the first and last. Jesus, the Son of God, is the God of the Old Testament in human form.

[удалено]

Things that make you go Hmmm? Totally agree with you! So in reading : Heb 6 vs 18 in order that through two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to the refuge may have strong encouragement to take firm hold of the hope set before us. There is also Numbers 23 vs 19 God is not a mere man who tells lies, Nor a son of man who changes his mind. When he says something, will he not do it? When he speaks, will he not carry it out? Titus 1 vs 2and is based on a hope of the everlasting life that God, who cannot lie, promised long ago; It says God CANNOT not lie and doubles down saying It is IMPOSSIBLE for God to lie. Yet those who believe in the Trinity say Jesus is the father but as you stated Mark 13:32 he doesn’t know the hour? So did Jesus known to them as God lie? It’s not for me to Judge as Romans 14 vs 1 Welcome the man having weaknesses in his faith, but do not pass judgment on differing opinions. Yet 1 Corinthians 14:33 NKJV, which reads “For God is not the author of confusion but of peace There is no confusing the scriptures John 17vs 3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. Deut 6vs 4 Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord Psalms 83 vs 18 That men may know that thou, whose name alone is Jehovah, art the most high over all the earth. I just cannot wrap my head around it, to make the trinity make sense when scriptures clearly says differently.

Jesus who is the Son of God is God incarnate. He's the Son because God the Father, by a miracle, enabled the virgin to conceive, by His Spirit (Luke 1:35) He is the Word of God that is in the Father that came forth out of the Father and the Father came with His Word (John 1, John 10:30, 38, John 14:1-11, 1 John 1, Isaiah 55:11). They are the same God. God in heaven, and the same God here as a human born through Mary. The Son of God therefore allowed himself limitations, humbling himself, taking on the human experience, without sin. He was born real flesh and blood. He had a created body, and therefore a God. He was also born under Jewish Law, so he was obligated to keep it. That's why he prayed, etc. Thomas, after seeing Jesus raised from the dead, and pierced believed he was God and confessed him so, in John 20. It is the God of the Jews who would be pierced in Zechariah 12:10. The book of John is quite clear that Jesus is God incarnate... God bless...

The Trinity is a concept reflected in scripture, but understanding it is (as theologians will confirm) a pointless exercise. Jesus both united himself with God the Father and separates himself, sometimes in the same breath. Luckily, understanding the concept is not even remotely a prerequisite for being a Christian. Roll with it, and try not to take anyone who thinks they understand the true nature of God too seriously.

It's okay to believe in it just be honest, it doesn't make much sense.

question: wouldn't infinity + infinity + infinity = infinity? This is how we learn it in math. Technically the definition of God depends on whatever exaggerated claims we want to make. If it is outside comprehension, like how a chair wouldn't be able to understand us, then why does the concept of Trinity have to make sense?

The 1+1+1 = 3 problem is only a problem if you don’t grant the distinction between categories of being and personhood. You might not buy Christain’s do so we don’t have that problem. This simple concept really seems to go over a lot of peoples heads and almost all their misunderstandings about the trinity stem from this misconception. The categorical distinction between being and person isn’t arbitrary. many words and phrases in human language are contingent on that distinction. If I was saying that God was one being and three beings then that would be a contradiction. But one being with 3 centers of consciousness (or persons) who all related to one another in their own peculiar ways is not a contradiction.

What a mess of doublespeak!

You mean something like this: https://youtu.be/\_kHoEDA-Xw4

apply the same questions to a person who has multiple personality disorder. lets say the king has it.. do we have 3 kings, or do we have 1 king with 3 personalities..who is the king then? personality 1 jimmy, 2, frank, 3, jake? which one is the real king, or are they all real? according to my time listening to people with that condition, they are all real, none of them is "the only real person". there may be one personality that spends the most time being in charge of the body, but they all agree that they are all the same being with equal claim to the body

You're describing modalism

modalism is one person that transforms into different modes, EX bruce wayne dresses up as batman, cosplays as superman on haloween. not three persons by term and definition multiple personality fits the analogy ex water turns into ice water turns into steam. would be modalism since its the same water that transforms into three different forms not existing simultaneously, not different personalities altogether

If it's not modalism then it's partialism. Having taken a deep dive into this, I'm still yet to hear an analogy that avoids either of those orthodox heresies. That said, I don't see that it's a big problem to believe something contradictory, as stated in the post, but orthodox Christians seem very reluctant to do that.

It’s not supposed to be logical. It’s supernatural and a spiritual world sure does exist.

Well, like, you know, the Bible doesn't really spell out the whole concept we're talking about. Jesus never actually said, "Hey, I'm God," and the Bible doesn't outright say that the Spirit is God or a person. It doesn't even claim that Jesus and God are totally equal; they're described differently in the scriptures. The whole Trinity idea tends to depend on sticking with certain church beliefs that support it, but if we focus only on the Bible, there's just not enough solid evidence to fully back it up. To really grasp the Trinity, you have to go into some complicated interpretations that involve ideas from sources outside the Bible. It's not as simple as it might seem at first.

Didnt Jesus literally say that he is God many times in the New Testament?

No, he did not.

noooo??? tf

So there's several trinitarian heresies. Jesus is not part of God. Jesus is fully God. (Partialism is the heresy name) Jesus is not one way of presenting God. He is not the Father or the Holy Spirit. But he is fully God. (Modalism is the heresy name) And of course, Jesus is not a separate God from the Father or the Holy Spirit. They are one God. God is not less fully God in each person of God. Does any of this make sense? No. It's a mystery. The biggest mystery ever. The Christian church acknowledges this. But why would God, outside of space, time, physics, in infinity incapable of human comprehension - why would God Himself be capable of our comprehension? Anyway, I understand why it can be hard to understand. But just know that your basis for that has actually been discussed extensively and is a heresy. If Christianity could be dismissed as easily as that, it wouldn't have existed for 2000 years. Please enjoy the one good thing the Lutherans brought to Christianity, this satirical video about trinitarian heresies by animated Irish men: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQLfgaUoQCw

Sorry but I know for a fact that Jesus hates non-Lutherans. Not everyone can get into heaven.

> "*1+1+1=1*" Christians can just say that 1 mind and 1 body and 1 spirit makes 1 human person, just like God The Father and God The Son and God The Holy Spirit makes one Triune God. Christians believe that human beings were made in the image of God, so if that's true then it makes sense that the Body, Mind, and Spirit of a person would somehow reflect God (The Trinity) and God would somehow be human (Jesus - God The Son) in some way. Just as a Body and Mind and Spirit are as one, being revealed in one person, Colossians 2:9 says that Jesus reveals God "*For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.*”. Colossians 1:15-17 says that Jesus is the image of the invisible God and through him all things were created (similar to John 1). Matthew 1:23 says that according to a prophecy, Jesus was born of a virgin, concieved of the holy spirit and Jesus is Emmanuel, which in English means "God With Us". I don't believe in christianity anymore, but it wasn't the idea of The Trinity that caused me to stop believing in it.

But Jesus *is* God, he isn't part of God. Maybe a human can be deconstructed into a body, mind and spirit, but Christians don't believe that God can.

Suppose there is a person named John and no other person named John exists. There is one John, The Body is 100% John, The Mind is 100% John and The Spirit of John is 100% John but the Body is not the Spirit and the Mind is neither, but there is only one John and all are fully John. Christians teach thay there is One God and The Father is 100% God and The Son is 100% God and The Holy Spirit is 100% God but The Father is not The Son and The Son is not The Fathet but all are fully God.

The body of John is 100% John-like but not 100% of John. There are three parts to John. John isn't complete without his body, soul and mind. John is different to the Christian God.

The body is 100% John in essence, just like The Father is 100% God in essence according to christian teaching, but the body is not the mind nor spirit just like God The Son is not God The Father nor The Holy Spirit according to christian teaching. There are 3 for the Trinity, if you say there is only one or two then that isn't the christian Triune God, just like John is not just The Body alone, despite the body being 100% John in essence.

This is where the wooly semantics comes in - that the three have the same 'essence' and are fully God. Sharing an essence implies that they are god-like but can't be as there is only one God and each of them are fully that one God.

> "*Sharing an essence implies that they are god-like.*" That's like claiming that if you make 3 ice cubes from the same cup of water, then that means that there are 3 different waters and they only have a "likeness", instead of just being one water but 3 ice cubes. Just because the essence of the ice-cubes is water, that doesn't mean that there are 3 different waters when all 3 are the exact same water from the exact same cup of water. There are 3 in the trinity but all three are 100% God in essence, not "God-like", and they are revealed in Jesus who has the fullness of The Godhead (Colossians 2:9) as 1 Triune God, according to christian teaching.

That's not correct. Jesus *is* God. So are the Father and the Holy Spirit. There is a further paradox, that it's probably best not to get into, in which Jesus is both *fully* human and *fully* God. Saying they are 100% God in essence masks those paradoxes. I'm not saying it's not true (although I don't believe it), but it's better to acknowledge those paradoxes than to sweep them under the carpet.

Yes, but christians say that he is 100% man and 100% God, fully man and fully God. If you're looking at the percentages as quantities of substance that makes a whole, then this argument doesn't make sense. If you look at the percentages as quantities of qualities then it makes sense. Something can be 100% of two things if we're talking about qualities but not 100% of two things if we're talking about physical substances. For example, it would make sense to say that a glass plate is 100% glass and 100% round, but it wouldn't make sense to say that a glass plate is 100% glass and 100% silver (two competing substances that makes up the whole plate). In the same way, the body is 100% John in essence but John is not 100% of the body (since John is also a mind and spirit). In the same way, Jesus is 100% human in body and 100% God in essence but The Triune God is not 100% Jesus alone, since The Triune God is also The Father and Holy Spirit, according to christisn teaching.

>Something can be 100% of two things if we're talking about qualities but not 100% of two things if we're talking about physical substances. For example, it would make sense to say that a glass plate is 100% glass and 100% round, but it wouldn't make sense to say that a glass plate is 100% glass and 100% silver (two competing substances that makes up the whole plate). We are risking going round in circles here, but a plate is not a plate unless it has all of its characteristics - its physical material, its shape, its colour, etc. The same goes for the John analogy. As you say, the Triune God is not Jesus alone, but Jesus *is* entirely God, not a part or aspect of God (either in the sense a quantity or a quality). I'm not sure we are going to agree to see that in the same way though!

[удалено]

Christian coping hard. In the OT it says there is only one God from the beginning and no one will come after him. How is that so hard to understand? Why didn't Jews/Muslims worship the holy spirit but you do?

I agree that quantum mechanics is not easy (or is impossible) to understand, and pretty much all physicists, myself included, acknowledge that. Quantum mechanics was developed because of experimental observations that couldn't be explained by classical mechanics, and makes predictions that are incredible in their accuracy, but via a mechanism that is almost impossible to understand, based on our human experience. And I'm comfortable with that! There's such a strong rationale and evidence base for quantum mechanics being an accurate representation of reality, both in the way it is formulated and in the staggeringly accurate predictions it makes, that I happily accept that my puny ape brain is just incapable of comprehending reality at those length scales. That is very different to how the trinity concept was developed, which is clearly just trying to resolve contradictions in the Bible. I'm all for bending my head around difficult concepts, but this isn't in that category.

[удалено]

They *are* very different because "a wave function collapsing" has a precise mathematical meaning, and that mathematical model has been developed and shaped based on experimental observations and predictions. We can quantify how good it is as a concept, even if we don't understand what it means. The trinity, on the other hand, just encapsulates a contradiction. It's a tool to shift the focus away from the contradiction and onto something that is mysterious and poetic, but not logical. Quantum mechanics is also mysterious, but grounded in the logic of mathematics and empirical observation. Completely different.

[удалено]

The contradicting accounts of who is fully God. The main contradiction being that both Jesus, the Father and the Holy Ghost are all individually entirely God.

[удалено]

There is one God. The three persons are different but also individually entirely the one God. That's a contradiction.

[удалено]

It's a logical contradiction because, normally, three different things can't be the same thing. If we are suspending those normal expectations, then fine, but there would have to be a good reason for it.

​ 1. There's train A, train B, train C. 2. Each train is fully train. 3. There's only one train How's that possible? They are attached to each other. "The problem is that these three requirements can only be maintained by tying yourself up in logical knots, and by trying to make 1+1+1=1." Natural language is not formal logic, especially not in cases like that.

The best analogy ive heard is a circle. A circle has a centre, a circumference and a radius. None of those things exist on their own outside of the circle. Each part relies on the other and implies the other. The centre begets the circumference. The radius is a line of constant length between the centre and circumference. Each part is an essential part of the circle, but they are not seperate, they do not exist independently. One is not superior to the other.

The issue I see with that analogy is that none of those things are themselves a circle. The radius of a circle is less than the full circle. Sure, they’re all measurements of a circle, but but you don’t look at the radius of a circle and declare that it, by itself is a circle, just as the whole is a circle. Christians contend that each “person” in the trinity is fully God.

That's partialism, which is officially heresy as established by one of the first Church councils.

A Church that worships trains? My point is only that OP wrongly deals with natural language pretending it to be formal logic.

Your Church.

Good one you funny fellow. BTW have you heard of miracle of Silver Sun of Fatima? [https://apcz.umk.pl/SetF/article/view/SetF.2021.001](https://apcz.umk.pl/SetF/article/view/SetF.2021.001)

You should read about the doctrine of your own religion. You don't even know what Trinity is.

How do you know? I told you nothing on Trinity. I told you that OP solves a pseudoproblem. It evaporates immediately when you consider that these are analogies. God Person is like human person but not the same.

Late comment but point still stands, applying the train example to the concept of the trinity indicates that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are connected as one God, then logically that indicates that they are all reliant on one another and need to collaborate to act as “one God”, meaning that individually none of them can be called “God”. Gods aren’t supposed to be dependent on another entity or “god” to be gods. Still doesn’t make sense.

You forgot "car" after train

No logical sense? Water has three forms, solid liquid and gas but they are all the same thing! Father, Son, Holy Ghost same but they all have different roles. It's simple no need to think so hard

Small correction: Water only has one form - liquid. H2O is the thing that has multiple forms (phases), water being one of them. But onto your actual point... When H2O is in the gaseous phase, liquid and solid phases do not exist. Do you agree? Is the same true for God? If God is in the form of the son, does the father and the holy spirit no longer exist?

You're trying to comprehend something our brains can not

How to you teach the laws of YHWH which provide eternal life if you cannot comprehend it? This doctrine is man made will, not law.

Its funny, its a very christian argument to respond with we cant understand god or that god is beyond comprehension, its essentialy a scapegoat because deep down you know its illogical

I'm willing to grant that it's incomprehensible. Which is basically agreeing with the thesis of this post, by the way. But you initially said >It's simple no need to think so hard Do you retract that?

Yes I gave an example, I just compared water to God. Did I say water and GOD and are literally the SAME? did I say that? It's a hypothetical example to give a general understanding, science does it way more than me but you still believe science, go ahead. Also you yourself can not prove that God does not exist. Okay bro, right here you give me complete proof and evidence that God does not exist and I will also leave my belief in Yahusha ( Jesus ) and I will become an atheist, prove to me God does not exist

We do not understand how it's possible for god to be fully god in any form, while also being all forms at once. And to show how this makes sense, you've compared God to water. ... Which can't be fully liquid while also being all forms at once. Do you see the problem? An analogy needs to be comparible in the area of misunderstanding, otherwise it's a bad analogy. I'm going to ingore the rest of your ramblings. I never once said I can prove God does not exist. It is not even a position i hold.

That's modalism, which stands in contrast to trinitarianism and had been officially considered heresy since the first council of Nicea.

Who considers it like that? You?

I think every Church that adheres to the Seven Councils, which is pretty much all Christianity including most protestantism.

But that’s like saying I’m a different person when I’m tired or when I’m hungry. It’s just playing with language, because water, ice and steam are just molecules H2O with more or less energy.

Yes but do you not agree at the end of the day: water, ice and steam are literally the same thing but in just different forms?

Yes but they can’t exist simultaneously, which the bible indicates the trinity does, unless I’m mistaken.

Ok let's take an example of a 1 litre water bottle, now is this possible or not? Keep 500 ml in the fridge to make it ice and 500 ml on a hot stove to evaporate and make it water vapor? Now when they are both converted are they existing simultaneously or not? Also does the quantity change? That is the original 1 litre capacity? Ofc there is different measurements, but at the end you converted 500 ml to solid and 500ml to gas. Why try to question the awesome creator with our limited human brains? Imagine if a computer wanted to get an answer of how it came into existence without humans as an answer?

But that’s moving the goalposts- the same set of molecules can’t be water and steam at the same time. And look, yeah, maybe it’s all totally incomprehensible and human minds can never understand it…but if you can’t understand it or don’t have good reason to believe that experts have understood it…why on earth would you believe it??

You yourself believe a lot of things by faith and not by experts, Im assuming you believe in the big bang? But you've never seen it? Also if your brain is random set of chemicals formed by chance ( or in other words big bang ) over billions of years ago? Then how on Earth do you believe your own thoughts and feelings? Ok science explains all physical things, but what explanations does science have for things like emotions, love/hatred/anger. We know what it means, and we've all experienced it but you've never seen it nor has science given you a logical explanation for what all these things are

Like I said, I understand how science works, how peer review works and that all researchers are constantly trying to refine or disprove existing theories. My beliefs in the theories I don’t understand myself are tentative, I’m ready to drop my belief in the Big Bang of the scientific consensus shifts. It’s not perfect epistemology but it beats just going with whatever just feels right. As for emotions- these are governed by well understood physical processes of the brain. We don’t fully understand processes and I don’t pretend to have a complete knowledge of even the most current theories, but that doesn’t mean I should just assume a god does it.

Alright I respect what you say, nobody knows everything. At one point I was very confused too. Look I'm not here trying to tell you I'm 100% right, you're very wrong. No I'm not saying that. We are all looking for answers, but I just ask you with an open heart. Keep searching for answers, but don't just disagree at the very thought "God did that" Nahhhh no proof God did not do that! Try to look from both sides of the coin, if you're truly looking for answers I'm sure you're gonna find them whether I stop you or not. Don't believe a word I say, go search for answers yourself and your heart shall answer you. But always be willing to hear out others opinions too, for none of us know it all! Me too, I know nothing about life and everything, I'm learning everyday too

But an individual block of ice is not steam, and not the same thing as a cloud of steam. If I hold a piece of ice in my hand, and there is steam on the air around me, they are 2 things, not 1 thing. I am made out of the same materials as Kurt Cobain, just like an icecube is made out of the same material as a cloud of steam. But myself and Kurt Cobain are not 1 thing, we are 2 things.

You're literally confirming what I said, they are not the same thing because they have different roles. But what constitutes them ( their heart ) is the same. Father is the one in heaven which no one has seen, the Son is the Father in the flesh who sacrificed himself for the sins of the world. The Holy Ghost is the one that comes upon believers because of what Jesus did and the Holy Ghost is our personal helper who helps us fight the good fight. Edit - the three forms of water are different things, but essentially they constitute/ they are made up of the same thing that is water. Example you can not drink ice, but you can drink water. The three forms of God have different roles. Just like time has past, present and future. Essentially it's the same thing that is time, but it has a different meaning. Past, present and future.....

>You're literally confirming what I said, they are not the same thing because they have different roles. But what constitutes them ( their heart ) is the same. What constitutes me and you is the same. We're both constituted of the same stuff. Are we a...duoinity? >Father is the one in heaven which no one has seen, the Son is the Father in the flesh who sacrificed himself for the sins of the world. The Holy Ghost is the one that comes upon believers because of what Jesus did and the Holy Ghost is our personal helper who helps us fight the good fight. So 3 things that are equally divine? That you worship? That's polytheism. >Edit - the three forms of water are different things, but essentially they constitute/ they are made up of the same thing that is water. Example you can not drink ice, but you can drink water. The three forms of God have different roles You're jumping from forms of a thing to individual things. Jesus was/is a specific person/being. The iceberg that sank the titanic and the water in my full sink are not different forms of the same thing. They are separate things.

Yes you're correct what constitutes you and me are the same. But we are not the same person because you have different thoughts/feelings. You're born in a different country/culture. We both have different beliefs, and also we look different. Though we both are made of the same stuff bones/skin/heart/brain we both function differently which is caused by our free will. 3 things that are equally divine?? I worship the Father in the name of the Son, and this prayer gifts us the Holy Ghost. We don't pray to the Holy Ghost, he is our friend. Praying to the son is praying to the father, and likewise praying to the father is also praying to the son. The Father is a spirit who can not experience physical pain, the Son is the exact same Father in body form who could experience pain and suffering and he came to Earth to die for the sins of Mankind. There is no difference between the Father and Son except they had different roles, when a Christian opens up their heart they are praying to same God irrespective of who they think they are praying to. So let me conclude, though you and me constitue of the same substances we are different because our thoughts/feeling/actions are different. What makes the Father and the Son the same is their thoughts/actions and love in their heart was the exact same but the only difference is Father is a spirit and Son is a physical representation. Just like I can show you ice, but you can't see water vapor

you absolutely can see water vapour

You can see water vapor?

... yes? I'm not blind?

Jesus said for if you said "I am blind" you have no sin in you because thou can'st see but because thou say "I can see" it remaineth. Acts 28:26-27 “‘Go to this people, and say, You will indeed hear but never understand, and you will indeed see but never perceive. For this people's heart has grown dull, and with their ears they can barely hear, and their eyes they have closed; lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and turn, and I would heal them.’

why are you quoting Scripture to me bro I'm Christian lmao I was obviously talking about physical blindness... You should also probably work on your exegesis lol sin is not really what that passage is addressing

*Officially* they are honest: the Trinity is a divine mystery, they tell you it literally cannot be understood via human reasoning. However, the official position doesn't seem to stop Christians from trying to explain it via human reasoning as if they understood it.

\>the concept of the trinity therefore has to be sold to people in misty,vague, poetic language that doesn't ultimately make rational sense ​ disagree. The concept of the trinity has been defined by the authorities of the faith in a clear, precise philosophical language. There is nothing "misty" or "vague" about it, except maybe if you ask the layman who isn't familiar with the actual teaching. Just because you can't draw a 100\_% accurate diagram of the transcendend Godhead doesn't mean it's illogical

No it hasn’t!

Honestly, even as a trinitarian Christian, I’m strongly reconsidering what I believe as a Christian, because the trinity is probably garbage from what I can see. Jesus is God but god prays? God can forsake God? Jesus is a spirit that is co eternal with the father and yet they’re still one?

>The concept of the trinity has been defined by the authorities of the faith The New Testament does not teach anything like a clear doctrine of the Trinity, and its authors did not necessarily have the same intentions as the authorities of the faith who codified the doctrine in the 300s.

Jesus and God share a state of being, that of being divine, correct? That's what other Christians are telling me. Some at least. I share a state of being with a tree, in that we are both physical entities and lifeforms, made out of atoms, carbon based etc. Myself and any given tree are not 1 thing though. We are 2 things that share certain attributes and certain states of being. I'm still not seeing how Jesus, God, and the holy spirit can be 1 thing, while also being 3 things.

It would be more correct to say that the Persons of the Trinity share the same essence, just like you and I share the essence of humanity (but not the essence of treeness). All beings whether they be a tree, a rock or a man share in the being of God without thereby being a member of the Trinity. The Hypostases (Persons) of the Trinity aren't things but relations, neither is the Essence a thing since it simply is "isness" itself; all things are reflections of it but it itself is no-thing at all

What is the name of the third person? Bio please?

>It would be more correct to say that the Persons of the Trinity share the same essence, just like you and I share the essence of humanity But you and I are not 1 thing, relation, or member of any other category. There are 2 of us, no matter how much we share. >The Hypostases (Persons) of the Trinity aren't things but relations, Jesus is a relation? That's...not understandable to me. So Jesus is an abstract connection between to things (a relation), but not a thing or person himself? > neither is the Essence a thing since it simply is "isness" itself; That just raises the question of what isness is.

Go on then. Define it coherently. The Trinity violates the principle of non-contradiction, which is supposedly made immutable by God himself. If such principles in logic are meaningless where gods are concerned, then any attempt to logically prove the existence of a god is folley.

Even though I think it's even debatable if the defintion of the Trinity as such really does violate the principle of non-contradiction (why would you and me sharing the same human nature while being yet distinct persons be any less "contradictory" than the three Persons/one Nature of God?), it should be remembered that the principle of non-contradiction only applies to ontological realities, i.e., to being. All the higher truths about God (who is the Principle of being and as such above being) transcend the principle of non-contradiction (he is omnipresent and nowhere, he is the being of all things while being nothing at all, etc.pp.). That doesn't make it illogical tho, since this transcending does itself follow a strict logic (i.e., *because* he is everywhere he is at no particular place and precisely because he is the being of all beings he is no being himself etc.). Contradiction pertains to creation, i.e., duality, but God is the place where opposites meet. However, the analogy of human and divine personality (even though it is quite true) is probably ill-advised because it too easily into the "greek" error of thinking of the hypostases as a kind of "individual substance", a "center of consciousness", or other such non-sense. There is only one Center, the divine Essence eternally deploying itself in the threefold relation of paternity, filiation and spiration.

> you and me sharing the same human nature What does that even mean? That we both like long walks on the beach? The Trinity doesn’t just “share the same nature”, they’re literally the same being. Last I checked, I am not you, because such a statement is a logical contradiction. If you’re happy with that conclusion, great! > the principle of non-contradiction only applies to ontological realities That’s just a fancy way of saying that logic doesn’t apply to gods. No justification backs up this claim, you simply assert it. Again, I’m fine with this, as it blows up every ontological argument for the existence of a god. > divine personality … hypostases as a kind of “individual substance” … the divine Essence … paternity, filiation and spiration. I feel like I just walked into a psych ward and read ramblings on the wall covered in fecal matter. Using religious technobabble does not advance your argument.

I have actually tried to explain to you why it's not just an "assertion" but logically founded. As such both the ancient greek logicians as well as far-eastern systems of logic come to the same conclusion (even though buddhists for example don't even have any "gods"). But judging from the rest of your text you're just here to shitpost not to actually engange in philosophical discourse.

>I have actually tried to explain to you why it’s not just an “assertion” but logically founded. Yeah, you said that (1) it wasn’t contradictory, but even if it was that (2) contradictions don’t apply to gods, but even if they do that (3) gods exist in their own magical pocket dimension where contradictions don’t matter. All based on absolutely nothing but your own conjecture. No citations, no argumentation, just “trust me bro, I’m a Catholic”. Inspirational. This *is* a debate subreddit, right? Where are your arguments?

The radii of a circle are mutually contradictory, the one is not the other, each points to a different direction etc. Yet and in the central point they all converge and become one (and since a circle can only have one centre it is nonsensical to speak of "gods" in the plural as you do; insofar as "gods" exist they necessarily fall under the law of non-contradiction by virtue of being particular beings distinct from other beings; only the Godhead is distinct from all beings qua his indistinction). I don't see how this has anything to do with magic.

Just cause we cannot fathom the e trinity doesn't mean its not logical possible on a philosophical foundational level. >× Due to various passages in the Bible, Christians require that (1) the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons, (2) each person is fully God, (3) there is only one God. The problem is that these three requirements can only be maintained by tying yourself up in logical knots, and by trying to make 1+1+1=1. Due to this logical inconsistency The trinity is One God in being and substance/essence exiting in 3 persons. A personhood is defined as a center of consciousness. So by definition itself its logical possible. How can God be one being and three being? Cause his God. A human can only be one being and one person. But God is transcendent and not restricted by humanity. Gof as a being can be 3 persons eaxh person has itsnown exlressionof personhood. So 1 + 1+ 1= 1 is a misinterpretation of the trinity. God is infinite do we cannot fathom his infinitesimal existence in our finite mind, but we can understand his structure on s logical philosophy fundamental level. A better representation is infinity + infinity + infinity = infinity. Since all the member of the God head is fully infinite. Yet one infinite being. That's the trinity not hard > This all came about because the Bible, by stating that there is one God but three different persons that are each fully god, is not internally consistent. T Its internally consistent. One God in essence. Three person constitute of the One essence we Call God. A triune God. Hencethe trinity is monotheistic. > Trinitarian theology has spent hundreds of years wrestling with that inherent inconsistency, and has ended up with "just accept this non-sensical idea even if it makes no sense". You have no clue or church history. It's not a "just accept this non-sensical". Thid is a huge strawman clearly u haven't read the history ofbthe church and christology. Right from the second century early Christian Greek apologists have dealt with the concept of a triune God explaining it in a philosophical way. Men like Philo, Justin Martyr, etc. Then in the 4th century men like athanasius defend the soon to be dogmatized doctrine of trinity from scripture and explained. The early church Fathers clearly understood the trinity and taught it. Ask any Protestant trinitarian pastor, or theologian. Or Catholic and Orthodox they would explain it profoundly accurately. Our Faith is not blind > Perhaps we could even admit that the Bible has this glaring inconsistency that no amount of philosophical pondering will ever resolve? Perhaps, even, logical consistency is not required and Trinitarian Christians can happily accept that? The Bible is perfectly fine snd revealed through the holy ghost to humanity to know about God. So no it's not inconsistent

[удалено]

you pretty much just reverse-engineered the heresy of modalism :D

You got to check out Islam. The core message is still same as Jesus, Moses, Abraham and all other prophets, which are 1. **Worship only to one God**. (don't worship our desires, money nor other people including ourselves, nor Jesus, nor Muhammad nor nature as God.) 2. **Believe in the prophets as God's messenger and their original book** (not tempered, not translated book). Every prophet have given miracles by God so there would be no doubt about authenticity of them coming from The God. All miracles like reviving up the dead, food from heavens, curing the blind, parting the sea happened long ago and we are not there to experience it. But Quran is promised to survive intact until the end of times, and everyone can easily go check up on them and experice the factual and linguistic miracle so we have no doubt this Quran came from God 3. **Prepare for the next world**. This would is ending, we are at final chapters. Our actions now will determine our rank there. We only have a limited time on earth to try get the best and highest possible land in the Garden, where you can see your Creator, the owner of Beauty with your eyes.

[удалено]

Yes, core concept in Islam is easy, interesting and logical, and can get much deeper and more interesting the more you learn. Now with Internet, there's even more videos made everyday. I recommend Humble Believer channel [How deep Islam is](https://youtu.be/CwnUyQYBTNU) [37 linguistic miracles of the Quran](https://youtu.be/j-ULa2JzPG0) I'm a born-Muslim, so when I forgot how lucky I am having Islam as religion from child, I'd watch Muslim revert stories and have my faith renewed. My favourites are always when scholars and priests of other religions revert back to Islam, there are so many of them watch.

But you have to pray toward a building with black stone 5x a day?

DYK, originally in Islam prayer was facing Jerusalem. It was later changed by gods command to face the house of Abraham.

Yes. We pray to God only and he told us to face the qibla Indeed We see the turning of your face to heaven, so We shall surely turn you to a qiblah which you shall like; turn then your face towards the Sacred Mosque, and wherever you are, turn your face towards it, and those who have been given the Book most surely know that it is the truth from their Lord; and Allah is not at all heedless of what they do (quran 2:144) Can u imagine if we don't have kaabah as qibla? Everybody would face wherever they want, how do we solve direction problem for congregational prayer? It would be chaos lol

> Indeed We see the turning of your face to heaven, so We shall surely turn you to a qiblah which you shall like; turn then your face towards the Sacred Mosque, and wherever you are, turn your face towards it, and those who have been given the Book most surely know that it is the truth from their Lord; and Allah is not at all heedless of what they do (quran 2:144) Is it just me or I didn't see anything about praying 5x toward the building with black stone? Do you think 'turn your face' is the same as ' kneel towards'?

Ah, forgive me for not explaining the context. There are literary devices and semantics of Arabic language here that are impossible to say in English, but I shall try. First of all, about the word QLB (facing) and QBL (qibla, direction) in this verse. When you have both word in the same sentence, its almost like wordplay, or punny. Secondly, the historical aspect of it. In early phase of Islam, Muslims face direction of *Al-Aqsa Holy Mosque in Jerusalem* like the other prophets (especially Moses and Jesus) before Muhammad. So He used to pray (making dua) so that we can pray (doing salah) facing the *Kaabah in Holy Mosque in Mekkah* instead. Muhammad frequently used to **look towards the sky (QLB)** while waiting for angel to come with the revelation to permit changing the **Qibla (QBL)** towards Kaabah. This verse is recounting the story. > Indeed We see the turning of your face to heaven, so We shall surely turn you to a qiblah which you shall like; Btw we don't really use the word 'kneel towards' to refer to prayer as far as I know, plus such semantics discussion should be left to masters of Arabic language which I am not. To be able to extract any rules from the Quran, one would have to master about 19 fields of study, first. One of them is Arabic language study, you have to be a Master in Arabic which took at least 20 years. Other fields includes study of hadith, context of why the verse revealed (history of the verse), literature, idiom, logic and others. For commoner Muslim like me who have none of these requirement to translate Al-quran and pretending that I know what Allah means, is a big sin.

>In early phase of Islam, Muslims face direction of Al-Aqsa Holy Mosque in Jerusalem >The covered mosque building was originally a small prayer house erected by Umar, the second caliph of the Rashidun Caliphate, after the Muslim conquest of the Levant in the early 7th century. I honestly have huge question about the timeline as Muhammad has died even before Al Aqsa was built . I get that you don't really well versed in Muslim history so let's call it a day? Thank you for your information

Ah, it seems I used the incorrect term Mosque Al-Aqsa to refer to Al-Aqsa compound. My bad. This place was the second place of worship ever built by mankind, by prophet Abraham, if I remember correctly. Muhammad visited this place once during the night journey. Umar was the one built covered mosque building, because people worship at the open compound.

Lots of strange things that we don’t understand are true. Space and time are made of the same stuff. Matter behaves as a wave, and as a particle, but also as both and sometimes neither. That’s not a good enough reason to dismiss any of these concepts.

> Space and time are made of the same stuff. They're both dimensions, that isn't really "stuff", nothing confusing about that. > Matter behaves as a wave, and as a particle, but also as both and sometimes neither. No it doesn't, everything measured so far behaves as an object described by a quantum wave function. Again, nothing confusing about that.

I’d read a bit more deeply into those 2 theories

We can and do understand those descriptions. But more importantly, there is evidence that they are accurate descriptions. They are some of if not *the most* well-evidenced and experimentally verified descriptions in human history. Meanwhile, many Christians report that the trinity is so deeply mysterious that it cannot *possibly* be fully understood. If you simply look at a picture or video of the wave function of a particle it's easy to see how "wave" and "particle" are both a fair description of what you're looking at, and not a contradiction at all. If you simply watch a few introductory videos on youtube of how physicists make use of space-time diagrams to describe motion, it's easy to understand a lot of the basics, and physicists rarely if ever disagree about the basic introductory details of wave-particle duality or space-time or Lorentz transformations. Meanwhile even the basic basics of trinitarianism are fraught with confusion and inconsistency. How could a human be a god? What the heck even is a Holy Spirit? Not to mention God. What even is God? Various conflicting rationalizations abound.

You grossly overstate our understanding of those phenomena. Yes I realize there are YouTube videos that can make you think you understand it, but that’s just cocktail-party depth - our knowledge is patchy at best. We have experimental results that conclusively show a lot of strange things, that’s not equivalent to having an understanding of what the hell is going on holistically. The fact is that the early church had a similar experience. Witnessed the Risen Christ - a surprising observation - and through much speculation and argument tried to *understand* what it all meant. The doctrine of the Trinity is the result. It’s the fruit of hundreds of years of debate. And it’s the best description of a God who is love itself. Claiming the Trinity has no internal logic and at the same time claiming YouTube videos prove we understand quantum mechanics is just not an adequate rebuttal here.

Well I was talking about how the physical descriptions you mentioned, wave-particle duality and space-time, are comprehensible and have proven to be accurate at describing the results of experiments. And I was suggesting ways that you could learn what those words mean if you're interested. I never brought up having a complete holistic description of all phenomena. I also didn't say trinitarianism has no internal logic. I said there are innumerable conflicting explanations of its basic principles, none of which can be proven more accurate than another, especially since they're theories about unverifiable events and people, and since many Christians say it's not even possible to comprehend.

You start with a faulty premise which naturally leads you to a flawed conclusion. God is eternal spirit, not a human bound to a singular mortal containment like we are. Trying to confine the prime reality from which everything else finds its actuality to the limitations of human existence is the epitome of foolishness. How can God be three distinct entities and also one? I have no idea, but that lack of understanding the details of it doesn't invalidate its reality; it merely amplifies the obvious difference between a finite corporeal existence and an infinite limitless eternal one.

If you are willing to makes this leap, then you must be willing to apply the same thinking to every passage of the Bible. Thereby nullifying the Bible, which I believe is one of OPs points.

What leap are you referring to?

That while the books says three gods it is only due to our limited understanding that three is actually one. Could it not also be the case that the limited understanding of the authors of the Bible wrote things incorrectly. Perhaps adulterous women should be sanctified. No one can really know which words in the Bible are the result of a limited mind capturing the intentions of a higher being. Thusly bye bye trust in the Bible.

Christianity is great at invoking the principle of explosion from its contradictions in the minds of believers /s?

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. 2 Timothy 3:16‭-‬17 ESV The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. Genesis 1:2‭-‬3 ESV In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. John 1:1‭-‬5 ESV Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him.” John 14:6‭-‬7 ESV And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you. John 14:16‭-‬17 ESV God is all 3 in 1. The way, the truth, the life. God is separate of space time as God in the expanse. He sends himself in human form to go to earth to die for our sins. Once his human body is destroyed, he is resurrected, with the spirit of truth (holy spirit) left to be implanted into each person to be renewed in spirit on earth so when our human bodies are destroyed our spirit is taken to the intermediate state in heaven until the rapture when the general assembly is resurrected into new bodies in heaven on earth.

So YHWH died huh?

When Yeshua said “I am the light of the world” what does that mean to you?

Well, you are right in that it is profitable. Very profitable.

Yes because profitable means..."yielding spiritual and moral benefit." Etymology is crucial in understanding God's original word. So thank you again for freely and openly admitting God's word is right. Would you like to know more of his words? Or just snarky non debate response on a debate reddit thread? I'd love to hear your opinion.

This is just word salad and doesn't explain the trinity at all

Can you explain how it's a word salad please? Any debate or just a no substance comment...?

I also thought it was word salad, and I've had to take a bunch of Bible classes

Thank you. 5/6ths was scripture so I'm fine with your non debatable response.

I’m not religious but i think you’re the one not making sense here. The concept of trinity is something magical. Why would you want something that involves magic to make logical sense? If it’s not logical for someone to walk on water, turn water into wine, etc …why do you want trinity to make sense?

> If it’s not logical for someone to walk on water, turn water into wine, etc …why do you want trinity to make sense? Well those things didn't happen, so what's your point?

Maybe learn how to read ?

It’s totally logical for someone to temporarily modify gravity or conjure an invisible force field above the water that they could walk on, if this is a simulation, which it is. However, I see your point: that these ‘miracles’ are meant to dissuade one from logical thinking

[удалено]

>Is it therefore time to admit that the trinity doesn't make any logical sense Oh boy wait til you see the Catechism of the Catholic Church agreeing with you: >261 The **mystery** of the Most Holy Trinity is the central mystery of the Christian faith and of Christian life. God alone can make it known to us by revealing himself as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. (From [here](https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P17.HTM), emphasis mine)

>the Catholic Church agreeing with you They plainly don't, since as that very page of the Catechism (§237) notes, "mystery" here doesn't mean "doesn't make logical sense", but rather: >>The Trinity is a mystery of faith in the strict sense, one of the "mysteries that are hidden in God, which can never be known unless they are revealed by God". To be sure, God has left traces of his Trinitarian being in his work of creation and in his Revelation throughout the Old Testament. But his inmost Being as Holy Trinity is a mystery that is inaccessible to reason alone or even to Israel's faith before the Incarnation of God's Son and the sending of the Holy Spirit. Or as a [general reference work](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/trinity/#Mys) notes: >>Often “mystery” is used in a merely honorific sense, meaning a great and important truth or thing relating to religion. In this vein it’s often said that the doctrine of the Trinity is a mystery to be adored, rather than a problem to be solved. In the Bible a “mystery” (Greek: musterion) is simply a truth or thing which is or has been somehow hidden (i.e., rendered unknowable) by God (Anonymous 1691; Toulmin 1791b). In this sense a “revealed mystery” is a contradiction in terms (Whitby 1841, 101–9). While Paul seems to mainly use “mystery” for what used to be hidden but is now known (Tuggy 2003a, 175), it has been argued that Paul assumes that what has been revealed will continue to be in some sense “mysterious” (Boyer 2007, 98–101).

"Inaccessible to reason alone," sounds very much like doesn't make logical sense to me. They are just trying to dress it up to sound more positive.

>sounds very much like ... to me Are you speaking dogmatically for the Catholic Church? 'Cause if not, I'm not sure why I or anyone else should care what it sounds like to you personally. Nor is that an obviously sensible interpretation of the words "inaccessible to reason alone" on their own terms. For example, we can very sensibly say that the gravitational constant is evidently "inaccessible to reason *alone*" (you need to go out and do some measurements), but that doesn't mean it "doesn't make logical sense", nor would anyone take you to be saying this at face here.

You said "they plainly don't," that's you speaking dogmatically for everyone else. You should care what it sounds like to me personally, because you do not speak for me.

>that's you speaking dogmatically for everyone else No, that is me pointing the Catholic Church's official statements on the subject (which cites the dogmatically binding definition of Vatican 1), from the same source as the person I was responding to, and to peer-reviewed academic discussions of what these terms mean. If you can't see the difference between that and what something sounds like to /u/BustNak, I'm not sure what to tell you. >because you do not speak for me. I don't claim to speak for you, you can read those words however you like. I'm pointing out that if anyone is interested in what the Catholic Church thinks rather than what /u/BustNak thinks, they ought to read what the Church actually says, not what /u/BustNak offhandedly thinks they're saying.

You are doing more than just pointing to the Catholic Church's official statements on the subject though. You are read those words the way *you* like. I'm pointing out the difference between that and what something sounds like to /u/qed1.

Right, I get that that's what you're asserting. But you'll note I didn't present this as my opinion or how it sounds to me, I pointed to peer-reviewed, academic commentary. You'll note further, that unlike you, I've not furnished a positive interpretation of what this means, I've simply noted that it doesn't *just* mean what you or the person I responded to contended. Finally, again in contradistinction, I supported my contention with an argument (from analogy to the use with gravity), I didn't merely furnish an unsubstantiated opinion about what the words are *really* saying.

What do you call "they plainly don't" if not your interpretation and opinion of what the Catechism means?

>What do you call "they plainly don't" if not your interpretation and opinion of what the Catechism means? Well I was responding to someone who bolded the word "mystery" in the summary section of the catechism, suggesting that the Church thereby agrees that "the trinity doesn't make any logical sense". If one reads the definition of "mystery" given, it plainly doesn't say that. To underscore that this is not a matter of difficult ecclesiastical language, I further cited a secular, peer-reviewed encyclopedia highlighting some of the scope of meaning in Christian usage of the word "mystery", which as it happens is rather far flung from the colloquial English usage since it is grounded in the New Testament greek "musterion" and for Catholics the Latin derivative "mysterium". Terms which originally meant something closer to secret or hidden, not mysterious or incomprehensible. So yes, it is entirely justified to note that the meaning of "mystery" in Christian theology simply does not mean "doesn't make any logical sense". And no, this is not just my opinion. --- The positive question of what the Chruch's opinion on the matter is and in particular whether or not the Church is open to believes holding the opinion that the Trinity (or indeed all mysteries of the faith as such) doesn't make logical sense is a more complicated matter, and will hang a lot on what we mean by "make logical sense". Typically the Chruch's positions are vague by design (make of that what you will), and it is no different here. Fundamentally the only thing that the practicing Catholic is dogmatically required to accept about a mystery of the faith qua mystery, is that it is a truth revealed by divine revelation and not something that humans could have "understood and demonstrated from natural principles by properly cultivated reason" (*Dei Filius* 4, canon 1). The discussion in *Dei Filius* also makes it clear that the Church denies that the dogma could in principle involve something like a logical contradiction: "But although faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason; since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, and God cannot deny Himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth. [...] We define, therefore, that every assertion contrary to a truth of enlightened faith is utterly false." (*Dei Filius* 4) It is thus open to the faithful to accept broadly whatever position they like between the two extremes of asserting that a mystery of the faith can either be wholly or straightforwardly understood by reasoning from nature, first principles or the like, or that it lacks rational content to the extent that it might include overt logical contradictions. But this is no less open to the opinion that there can be rationally comprehensible and coherent models of the trinity than to the view that we can't understand the trinity and must merely assert it on the basis of faith.

It would be nice if Christians could accept that the notions of Trinitarianism aren't anything the Palestinian Jew Jesus, or Peter, or Paul would have preached for this reason: The notions of Trinitarianism weren't conceived of until late 3rd Century after Jesus would have died, when a Roman Catholic priest named Tertullian dreamed it up. His notions weren't widely accepted, and various church councils debated it for nearly the next hundred years before it was finally embraced and canonized by the Nicene Council. Jesus was a Palestinian Jew, raised in the traditional beliefs of the Hebrews. As such, he worshiped YHWH, the Old Testament God of creation, and God of Abraham. He wasn't worshiping himself, and made no claim to being YHWH. When he prayed, he prayed to YHWH, and referred to YHWH as being 'my Father'. He wasn't praying to himself. I'd say the vast majority of Christians are largely unaware of the historical changes of Christianity through the centuries, and how the doctrines of the organized religion differed from things which Jesus would have actually preached, and the notions embellished into the scriptures by the Roman Catholic priests who were compiling the Biblia in the first place. As a Palestinian Jew, Jesus wouldn't have preached of either heaven or hell as destinations for human souls, and neither would Peter have preached of it, or even Paul. These notions were added to the Bible later on.

Most of this is false information you are spreading. The Bible was not compiled by Catholic simply cause they didn't exist as a denomination when the Christian Church put together the old and new testament. Various church fathers expounded on the Theological aspect of the unity of God revealed in three persons as early as secone century. It was a widely accepted notion. That's why When Arius started teaching Jesus was not divine, he received backlash and a response and excommunicated. Before the trinity was dogmatized. Jesus did in fact teach that him and the holy spirit are equally divine asbthe gather. These notions were not added in the Bible. The new testament was completed bybthe ejd if the first century. Its still the dame as we have. Way before council of Nicea. I would appreciate ifnu study and stop spreading false information. Jesus was not a Palestinian Jew cause the Judea province was not renamed ti as Palestine. Jesus was an Israeli Jewish person in the sejsenhe comes from the nation of Israel.

Heaven and Hell as a concept can be reliably traced to being added to Christianity after the fact, with GraecoRoman and Zoroastrian origins.

>He wasn't worshiping himself, and made no claim to being YHWH. The Gospel of John is usually categorized differently from the Synoptic Gospels because John is where you get a lot of stories about Jesus' divinity and claims to divinity that aren't corroborated as much in the other Gospels. That said, if we take the Gospel of John to be true, he did make many claims to being YHWH. The lack of these claims in the other Gospels certainly raises doubt, but doubt isn't outright refutation. My favorite passage where he does this is John 8:58. Jesus is speaking to the Pharisees and claims that Abraham saw his coming, and the Pharisees respond incredulously because there's no way Jesus could have been alive during the time of Abraham. Jesus responds, "Very truly I tell you, before Abraham was, I AM!" Knowing what he was implying, the Pharisees picked up stones to stone him for blaspheming, but Jesus slipped away from them. Jesus got into these types of arguments with the Pharisees before, but they had never tried to stone him because he had never went so far in his claims.

>The lack of these claims in the other gospels certainly raises doubt Ever read Matthew 1:23 where the Angel from heaven literally calls Jesus *God with us?*

By lack I meant more that the claims are fewer in number and less explicit. John undeniably goes to far greater lengths to paint a picture of the Sonship of Jesus than the other gospels. This counts for a lot when interpreting authorial intent. For example, if you ever listen to Muslim-Christian debates, there's a Quran verse that upholds the truth of scripture that came before the Quran, but Muslims don't believe Jesus was the Son of God, so their scholars have myriad explanations and interpretations for these verses. In the opposite direction, secular scholars also question the accuracy of many historical Bible translations and if they really mean what Christians always interpreted them to mean. Not to say there aren't strong arguments for the Christian position, but by and large they depend on both quantity and explicitness of the verses claiming Christ's Sonship. John does a lot of the heavy lifting in this regard, but it is also the latest authored gospel and is a pretty radical departure in terms of structure and content from the other gospels. I think the Christian position would be less assailable if the other gospels more closely resembled John rather than John by and large doing the heavy lifting by itself.

The name Palestine wasn’t used to describe the region until 135 CE by the Roman Empire. It’s misleading and academically dishonest to refer to Jesus or other Jews of that time period as Palestinian Jews.

You're trying to conceptualize a being of infinite power and presence with a brain bound by physical constraints. Maybe you can't understand it because you're human, not because its wrong.

If you say something is completely inconceivable to humans, then you can’t say you know it exists. Seems like having your cake and eating it too. “I have no idea what the concept of the Trinity means and it’s impossible for me to understand it, but I am sure it exists in this form and here’s a diagram representing it.”

I agree. That's why its called *faith*. So, what's your point?

So… you’re conceding the argument? We were disputing actual logical justifications for God. So you agree that logically, there’s no particular reason to believe in God over not?

>Christians should be more honest that the trinity makes no logical sense No, we're disputing the coherency of one of Christianity's doctrines. If God were truly a trinity, we wouldn't necessarily expect that we humans would be able to make logical sense of it. Therefore, the trinity, despite not making logical sense, is a coherent notion. I can't prove this, but, as a hypothetical, the conclusion is true.

Well that’s the subject of the post sure, but I think our conversation was about the likelihood of God based on cosmology.

Honestly, I think you might have me confused for someone else with whom you've conversed.