- This topic is empty.
- Posts
the doctrine of the Trinity has been stated as “the one God exists in three Persons and one substance.
Debunking the trinity has been difficult for the one main reason:
A trinitarian once explained it to me and I finally understood this is what he said:
Quote
This is why I keep saying that the law of Identity is iron clad in logic. Unless we understand what words or phrases or terms or title MEANS to the people USING THEM… we can't communicate rationally. It's that simple.In other words unless we agree on what we mean by trinity or triune it cannot be debunked but now that I understand what is meant by triune not being polytheistic I have been able to immediately to debunk it based on the very familiar “One for all and all for one” cliche. The trinity can therefore debunked on the basis that if any “person” of the trinity became cursed or took on sin the entire “substance” or “being” would have been altered as such. A part of a whole cannot be disassociated with the whole in reference to substance or nature. If Jesus took on sin then All of the substance of God would have become sin and the corruptible cannot inherit incorruption.
So the very Ideas of both trinity and atonement through the sacrifice of God the son would violate one another as all of God would be cursed by way of “substance” taking on sin.
You see all attempts of debunking the trinity rely on focusing on the “persons” of God instead of the substance of God. It would not natter if there were 10,000 persons to the Godhead if the substance were ONE even 1 person would taint the entire batch. This is really quite easy to understand from a Christian viewpoint because Christianity focuses on Original Sin which states that ONE man by Nature can taint all men and therefore this same standard is applied to the Nature of God whereas a trinitarian is virtually concluding that by Jesus becoming sin and a curse for man that God is made as sinful as man instead of God maintaining HIS HOLY NATURE which man should aspire to.
If The trinitarian triune God position is valid it is a proclamation that God is not Holy and incapable of Sin
If it is false then yes Jesus as a Man can be made unholy for a short time without affecting the nature of God as it would simply mean that the innocent has more value then all the guilty and as Jesus would like Job be rewarded after the suffering it would show that God's mercy would still prevail.
Quote In other words unless we agree on what we mean by trinity or triune it cannot be debunked but now that I understand what is meant by triune not being polytheistic I have been able to immediately to debunk it based on the very familiar “One for all and all for one” cliche Wow awesome, thats the main problem in the Believers section, we probably agree in the same thing
yet we still fight,
and we probably agree in something we actually disagree on,Quote (bodhitharta @ Sep. 02 2010,08:38) The trinity can therefore debunked on the basis that if any “person” of the trinity became cursed or took on sin the entire “substance” or “being” would have been altered as such. A part of a whole cannot be disassociated with the whole in reference to substance or nature. If Jesus took on sin then All of the substance of God would have become sin and the corruptible cannot inherit incorruption.
Hi BD,How wonderfully perfect! Thanks!
mike
I only hope if this is clear to a trinitarian that they will accept this for the sake and Glory of God because it's not about “being right”
It's about being right with God:)God Bless.
Quote (bodhitharta @ Sep. 02 2010,08:38) A part of a whole cannot be disassociated with the whole in reference to substance or nature. If Jesus took on sin then All of the substance of God would have become sin and the corruptible cannot inherit incorruption.
Why are you limiting the properties of this god to that which you can comprehend?Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Sep. 02 2010,12:02) Quote (bodhitharta @ Sep. 02 2010,08:38) A part of a whole cannot be disassociated with the whole in reference to substance or nature. If Jesus took on sin then All of the substance of God would have become sin and the corruptible cannot inherit incorruption.
Why are you limiting the properties of this god to that which you can comprehend?Stuart
hmm intresting,
so you agree there is a God that is beyond comprehension?Quote (Stu @ Sep. 02 2010,18:02) Quote (bodhitharta @ Sep. 02 2010,08:38) A part of a whole cannot be disassociated with the whole in reference to substance or nature. If Jesus took on sin then All of the substance of God would have become sin and the corruptible cannot inherit incorruption.
Why are you limiting the properties of this god to that which you can comprehend?Stuart
Actually I didn't I simply made a logical statement.If I said a part of a whole can be disassociated from the whole then it would simply change the quantitive value which for the purpose of the argument has already been deemed inarguable from both of our stand points.
By the way, wouldn't it make sense to talk about a concept or property we can comprehend?
Quote (Stu @ Sep. 02 2010,18:02) Quote (bodhitharta @ Sep. 02 2010,08:38) A part of a whole cannot be disassociated with the whole in reference to substance or nature. If Jesus took on sin then All of the substance of God would have become sin and the corruptible cannot inherit incorruption.
Why are you limiting the properties of this god to that which you can comprehend?Stuart
Hi Stuart,Excellent Point, my friend! (Isaiah 55:8-9)
Isaiah 55:8-9 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.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (bodhitharta @ Sep. 02 2010,18:46) Quote (Stu @ Sep. 02 2010,18:02) Quote (bodhitharta @ Sep. 02 2010,08:38) A part of a whole cannot be disassociated with the whole in reference to substance or nature. If Jesus took on sin then All of the substance of God would have become sin and the corruptible cannot inherit incorruption.
Why are you limiting the properties of this god to that which you can comprehend?Stuart
Actually I didn't I simply made a logical statement.If I said a part of a whole can be disassociated from the whole then it would simply change the quantitive value which for the purpose of the argument has already been deemed inarguable from both of our stand points.
By the way, wouldn't it make sense to talk about a concept or property we can comprehend?
You did not just make a logical statement. The whole thread is about you boasting (again), this time that you have been “able to debunk” a particular view of this god.I didn't ask you what made sense, actually I asked you why you are insisting it should make sense.
Stuart
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Sep. 02 2010,18:21) Quote (Stu @ Sep. 02 2010,12:02) Quote (bodhitharta @ Sep. 02 2010,08:38) A part of a whole cannot be disassociated with the whole in reference to substance or nature. If Jesus took on sin then All of the substance of God would have become sin and the corruptible cannot inherit incorruption.
Why are you limiting the properties of this god to that which you can comprehend?Stuart
hmm intresting,
so you agree there is a God that is beyond comprehension?
No obviously not. That is a concept for those who have no ability to discriminate between reality and fantasy.Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Sep. 02 2010,23:52) Quote (bodhitharta @ Sep. 02 2010,18:46) Quote (Stu @ Sep. 02 2010,18:02) Quote (bodhitharta @ Sep. 02 2010,08:38) A part of a whole cannot be disassociated with the whole in reference to substance or nature. If Jesus took on sin then All of the substance of God would have become sin and the corruptible cannot inherit incorruption.
Why are you limiting the properties of this god to that which you can comprehend?Stuart
Actually I didn't I simply made a logical statement.If I said a part of a whole can be disassociated from the whole then it would simply change the quantitive value which for the purpose of the argument has already been deemed inarguable from both of our stand points.
By the way, wouldn't it make sense to talk about a concept or property we can comprehend?
You did not just make a logical statement. The whole thread is about you boasting (again), this time that you have been “able to debunk” a particular view of this god.I didn't ask you what made sense, actually I asked you why you are insisting it should make sense.
Stuart
STU,If their is a view that has been given properties to examine for viability if one of the elements of the properties render the view unatenable it has nothing to do with me insisting it make sense in-fact it need not make sense to me at all because the debunking was based on the consequential change of the substance itself.
For instance when I spoke about the Atheist disease the discovery was about Atheist not simply dismissing God as a belief but the disease was in not accepting any “evidence” of God. For instance you keep calling God “imaginary” now why do you keep insisting that your view about God should make sense?
Actually, you do believe in God because you can Imagine GOD and you cannot think of something in your mind that does not exist, how can you even imagine something that does not exist If something does not exist it cannot even be imagined
So what we find with you is that you reject God because you imagine HIM to be something different than a believer does, isn't that why you can take a position in an argument against God.
Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 02 2010,23:49) Quote (Stu @ Sep. 02 2010,18:02) Quote (bodhitharta @ Sep. 02 2010,08:38) A part of a whole cannot be disassociated with the whole in reference to substance or nature. If Jesus took on sin then All of the substance of God would have become sin and the corruptible cannot inherit incorruption.
Why are you limiting the properties of this god to that which you can comprehend?Stuart
Hi Stuart,Excellent Point, my friend! (Isaiah 55:8-9)
Isaiah 55:8-9 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.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Actually STU,Your quote proves my point not negates it. If God is telling you that HIS ways are greater than yours and HIS thoughts are beyond your thoughts then that would obviously limit God to not being less than God wouldn't it?
If you believe that God cannot Lie that would be a limit albeit a good one but it is one and that would also mean our ways are lower than his and we can do what he cannot do we can lie albeit being a powerless thing to do.
BD
Quote If their is a view that has been given properties to examine for viability if one of the elements of the properties render the view unatenable it has nothing to do with me insisting it make sense in-fact it need not make sense to me at all because the debunking was based on the consequential change of the substance itself.
The words are English ones, unquestionably. The parsing of the sentences is alien though.Quote For instance when I spoke about the Atheist disease the discovery was about Atheist not simply dismissing God as a belief but the disease was in not accepting any “evidence” of God.
More alien parsing.Quote For instance you keep calling God “imaginary” now why do you keep insisting that your view about God should make sense?
I do not insist on any properties for something that does not exist. I do not even insist on non-existence, I just point out that asserting the properties of a being for which you cannot supply any unambiguous existential evidence is absurd.Quote Actually, you do believe in God because you can Imagine GOD and you cannot think of something in your mind that does not exist, how can you even imagine something that does not exist If something does not exist it cannot even be imagined
I believe that others believe in a thing they call a god, although I would not pretend to know what they mean, because it is pretty clear that they do not really know themselves. Why would anyone find that convincing? I think the answer is that the religious have insisted on some respect for the delusion under which they have fallen, and others are too compliant or keen to get on well to point out that not only is there an elephant in the room, but it is leaving big steaming piles of smelly dung on the philosophical rug.Quote So what we find with you is that you reject God because you imagine HIM to be something different than a believer does, isn't that why you can take a position in an argument against God.
Whose god do you mean?Stuart
BD
Quote Your quote proves my point not negates it. If God is telling you that HIS ways are greater than yours and HIS thoughts are beyond your thoughts then that would obviously limit God to not being less than God wouldn't it?
Huh? Was that sentence meant to communicate an idea? Read it to yourself again and then try and interpret what you wrote. It is logical nonsense as far as I can make out.Quote If you believe that God cannot Lie that would be a limit albeit a good one but it is one and that would also mean our ways are lower than his and we can do what he cannot do we can lie albeit being a powerless thing to do.
Logical discourse really is not your strong point, is it BD. If you mean lying is a bad thing then I think your view is a simplistic one that even simple people would see through.Stuart
Hello Asana…
Although I usually welcome a “thanks”… I think in this particular case, it is unwarranted and a bit premature. I would gently encourage you to read the post I submitted on the other thread in which we were discussing the Trinity.
You'll find that near the end of that post, I deal directly with this concern of yours. Apparantly you thought that because I had not posted in a few days, that I must have given up. Not at all.
I see that you posted over 5,000 posts. I don't know what the average number of posts you submit a day… but it is a number and an achievement I could never attain unless I give up my job and my wife and my life. I simply do not have the time to always come on here and post quickly. I do the best I can.
I'm implying anything about you because I'm sure you have a wonderful life and job… I only wish I could find the time to be on here as often as you appear to be. I admire your tenacity and your commitment to Allah… even though I personally think it is misplaced. But I respect you as a person nonetheless, as I respect everyone in here.
Respectfully
FrancisQuote (francis @ Sep. 03 2010,20:02) Hello Asana… Although I usually welcome a “thanks”… I think in this particular case, it is unwarranted and a bit premature. I would gently encourage you to read the post I submitted on the other thread in which we were discussing the Trinity.
You'll find that near the end of that post, I deal directly with this concern of yours. Apparantly you thought that because I had not posted in a few days, that I must have given up. Not at all.
I see that you posted over 5,000 posts. I don't know what the average number of posts you submit a day… but it is a number and an achievement I could never attain unless I give up my job and my wife and my life. I simply do not have the time to always come on here and post quickly. I do the best I can.
I'm implying anything about you because I'm sure you have a wonderful life and job… I only wish I could find the time to be on here as often as you appear to be. I admire your tenacity and your commitment to Allah… even though I personally think it is misplaced. But I respect you as a person nonetheless, as I respect everyone in here.
Respectfully
Francis
The commitment is to your God and my God:Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.
Revelation 3:11-13You see Jesus in heaven saying his “God” I worship the God that Jesus worships and so should you.
Now quickly understand if Jesus is in heaven saying “My God” he is obviously not including himself in the term “God” you said that God was triune but Jesus is not using it that way at all.
Anyway it has already been debunked and so has blood atonement if you read that thread and by the way once you see that blood atonement as the only way of atonement has been debunked you will see how the crucifixion would have not qualified as a sacrificial offering.
Num.23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie, nor as the son of man, that he should be changed.Hath he said then, and will he not do? hath he spoken, and will he not fulfill?
Quote (francis @ Sep. 03 2010,20:02) Hello Asana… Although I usually welcome a “thanks”… I think in this particular case, it is unwarranted and a bit premature. I would gently encourage you to read the post I submitted on the other thread in which we were discussing the Trinity.
You'll find that near the end of that post, I deal directly with this concern of yours. Apparantly you thought that because I had not posted in a few days, that I must have given up. Not at all.
I see that you posted over 5,000 posts. I don't know what the average number of posts you submit a day… but it is a number and an achievement I could never attain unless I give up my job and my wife and my life. I simply do not have the time to always come on here and post quickly. I do the best I can.
I'm implying anything about you because I'm sure you have a wonderful life and job… I only wish I could find the time to be on here as often as you appear to be. I admire your tenacity and your commitment to Allah… even though I personally think it is misplaced. But I respect you as a person nonetheless, as I respect everyone in here.
Respectfully
Francis
Hi Francis! I don't come here to often, but the name Francis caught my eye. My best friends name was Francis. She died a couple of years ago and I miss Her very much……So welcome to you too……IreneQuote (Stu @ Sep. 03 2010,16:45) BD Quote If their is a view that has been given properties to examine for viability if one of the elements of the properties render the view unatenable it has nothing to do with me insisting it make sense in-fact it need not make sense to me at all because the debunking was based on the consequential change of the substance itself.
The words are English ones, unquestionably. The parsing of the sentences is alien though.Stuart
Hi Stuart,Psalm 69:8 ‘i am’ become a stranger unto my brethren,
(here) and an alien unto my mother's children. (Rev.2:11)God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
