• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

John 1:1 makes the trinity impossible.

CLAX1911 said:
The trinity is just God existing in three coherent forms at three different times.

I've seen water do that, don't think it's a tall order for God.
Click to expand...

Actually that isn't the Trinity, that's modalism, the Trinity is 3 persons in one God.
 
it's just me said:
As much as I hate to say it, he's right, that IS modalism:

Sabellianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...
I grew up Catholic and they are a trinity teaching to my understanding, correct me if I'm wrong.

I never got the idea that there were three different Gods. My understanding was that it was like three manifestations of the same God.

So what is the trinity if the trinity is really modelism?
 
CLAX1911 said:
I grew up Catholic and they are a trinity teaching to my understanding, correct me if I'm wrong.

I never got the idea that there were three different Gods. My understanding was that it was like three manifestations of the same God.

So what is the trinity if the trinity is really modelism?
Click to expand...

It's a very fine line. Trinitarians do not believe the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each "manifestations" of God, we believe each IS God. So when you are talking about the Father, you are speaking of God Himself. When you speak of the Son, you are speaking of God Himself. When you speak of the Holy Spirit, you speak of God Himself. Modalists seem to believe each person of the Godhead is a "projection" of God, kinda like the Wizard of Oz.

The upshot of this is that when the Son speaks, he speaks as God. When the HS speaks, he speaks as God. This is one of the reasons these arguments break out: God didn't send us some back bencher to talk to us, he came in person. The problem for some is that Jesus, in addition to being fully God, was also fully man, which confuses a lot of people. When Jesus speaks of his sonhood, he is speaking of his manhood, but he is still fully God.

Clear as mud?
 
it's just me said:
It's a very fine line. Trinitarians do not believe the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each "manifestations" of God, we believe each IS God. So when you are talking about the Father, you are speaking of God Himself. When you speak of the Son, you are speaking of God Himself. When you speak of the Holy Spirit, you speak of God Himself. Modalists seem to believe each person of the Godhead is a "projection" of God, kinda like the Wizard of Oz.

The upshot of this is that when the Son speaks, he speaks as God. When the HS speaks, he speaks as God. This is one of the reasons these arguments break out: God didn't send us some back bencher to talk to us, he came in person. The problem for some is that Jesus, in addition to being fully God, was also fully man, which confuses a lot of people. When Jesus speaks of his sonhood, he is speaking of his manhood, but he is still fully God.

Clear as mud?
Click to expand...
No, you explained it well, it just seems like splitting hairs, very fine hairs. the thing I don't understand is why it makes a difference.
 
CLAX1911 said:
No, you explained it well, it just seems like splitting hairs, very fine hairs. the thing I don't understand is why it makes a difference.
Click to expand...

Maybe it doesn't to the average Joe, but this all came about at a time when the Church needed to define it's doctrine in a precise way.
 
it's just me said:
Maybe it doesn't to the average Joe, but this all came about at a time when the Church needed to define it's doctrine in a precise way.
Click to expand...
I just don't see how it makes a difference, not even to theologians. It's really specialty on the nature of God.
 
CLAX1911 said:
I just don't see how it makes a difference, not even to theologians. It's really specialty on the nature of God.
Click to expand...

In any discussion you need to define your terms. In this case, the discussion was between the Eastern Church and the Western Church.
 
RGacky3 said:
I'ts creative because you're picking and choosing different definitions when there is no textual basis to do so, in fact hte opposite basis since Jesus himself said "Just as" me and the father are one ... meaning according to Jesus himself there is no basis do use different definitions.....

By Ontological oneness, I mean oneness that is metaphysical, i.e. in some sense oneness in being or something of the sort, rather than "oneness" being used as a term for solidarity in thought, cause, faith, or something of the sort, so for example I can say "I am one With my wife," that is not ontological oneness .... But if I say The morning star and the eavning star are one, that's ontological (I'm using the philosopher Gottlob Frege's example).

But to be honest, I think it falls the trinitarian to explain what he believes "oneness" means.

1. In what sense is that relevant to the definition of oneness?
2. Again ... it isn't relevant ... the "time that they were one" doesn't change what the nature of that "oneness" is.

Of coarse there are distinctions between the person of Christ and his disciples, but that doesn't mean there is a distinction in what is meant by oneness.

Jesus never says that they were wrongfully called gods InFact the opposite.
Click to expand...


You misunderstood me in some of this post. But this is sprawling a bit and I see no urgent need to correct the little things. The one point I think you miss, is that yes, "that they may be one as We are One" is the point.
But we are not like Christ, are not one with the Father like Christ, we are one with the Father THROUGH Christ. That is the difference. The nit we seem to get hung up on eternally you and I.
I may become one with the Father as Christ is one with the Father, but I am not one with the Father by the same method that Christ is one with the Father.
He has always been one with the Father. He is the Vine. He is the One and Only, in whom the Father is well pleased, because he ALWAYS does what is pleasing to the Father.
I am one with the Father through my Lord Jesus Christ. Only. No other way. I do not always do what is pleasing to the Father... :( It is my faith in his Son that reconciles me to Him.
 
Cable said:
You misunderstood me in some of this post. But this is sprawling a bit and I see no urgent need to correct the little things. The one point I think you miss, is that yes, "that they may be one as We are One" is the point.
But we are not like Christ, are not one with the Father like Christ, we are one with the Father THROUGH Christ. That is the difference. The nit we seem to get hung up on eternally you and I.
I may become one with the Father as Christ is one with the Father, but I am not one with the Father by the same method that Christ is one with the Father.
He has always been one with the Father. He is the Vine. He is the One and Only, in whom the Father is well pleased, because he ALWAYS does what is pleasing to the Father.
I am one with the Father through my Lord Jesus Christ. Only. No other way. I do not always do what is pleasing to the Father... :( It is my faith in his Son that reconciles me to Him.
Click to expand...

The point is not whether we are like the Christ ... or anything like that .. the point is what Jesus means when he says "one" ....

it's obvious he's not using "oneness" anywhere in John in a ontological way ... so the point is you cannot use the "oneness" statements Jesus makes to imply any sort of ontological oneness, or that he is one With God in the sense that he IS God .... it simple is not the way "oneness" is being used in John.
 
RGacky3 said:
The point is not whether we are like the Christ ... or anything like that .. the point is what Jesus means when he says "one" ....

it's obvious he's not using "oneness" anywhere in John in a ontological way ... so the point is you cannot use the "oneness" statements Jesus makes to imply any sort of ontological oneness, or that he is one With God in the sense that he IS God .... it simple is not the way "oneness" is being used in John.
Click to expand...

It would be well if you stated this as your opinion. I don't believe you can say factually exactly what Jesus meant in all of these statements.
There are certainly a plethora of studied men who disagree with you based on the evidence.
 
Cable said:
It would be well if you stated this as your opinion. I don't believe you can say factually exactly what Jesus meant in all of these statements.
There are certainly a plethora of studied men who disagree with you based on the evidence.
Click to expand...

he can't state it factually he has 0 authority to do so. anything he states is his opinion and his opinion only. him and rammos are cut from the same cloth.
they both state their opinion as fact with 0 authority to do so. neither one has any degree or training in biblical theology.

I have asked them several time for their credentials in the matter both have refused to post anything.

there are a ton of men that disagree with the both of them. the only people that do agree with them are heresy's disproven long ago.
 
Cable said:
It would be well if you stated this as your opinion. I don't believe you can say factually exactly what Jesus meant in all of these statements.
There are certainly a plethora of studied men who disagree with you based on the evidence.
Click to expand...

Don't mention scholars that disagree with him, they don't exist.
 
RGacky3 said:
The point is not whether we are like the Christ ... or anything like that .. the point is what Jesus means when he says "one" ....

it's obvious he's not using "oneness" anywhere in John in a ontological way ... so the point is you cannot use the "oneness" statements Jesus makes to imply any sort of ontological oneness, or that he is one With God in the sense that he IS God .... it simple is not the way "oneness" is being used in John.
Click to expand...

John 1:1 is all about "ontological". That's the whole point of the verse.
 
it's just me said:
John 1:1 is all about "ontological". That's the whole point of the verse.
Click to expand...

You're changing the subject ... Cable and I were talking about the "oneness" verses ... none of which are in John 1 ...
 
Cable said:
It would be well if you stated this as your opinion. I don't believe you can say factually exactly what Jesus meant in all of these statements.
There are certainly a plethora of studied men who disagree with you based on the evidence.
Click to expand...

Here's what we can say though, what John meant when he was writing ... now of coarse ANYTHING is possible ... he could have meant anything ... but we have to look at what is likely .... and what is unlikely is that John was changing the meaning of Words every other phrase without any indication that he was doing so.

I mean if you're going to go that far you've basically just given up doing exegesis completely.
 
As human beings we must consider things and come to our own conclusions. The problem comes when we apply human precepts and concepts on God. When we accidently or conveniently apply human constructs on the God responsible for the creation of time, matter and life. The entire Trinity discussion is always one I personally find amusing is that context.

We Catholics love to cut and paste because it is hard to improve on certain content that is anywhere from 2000+ years old to last week. So here I offer content from the great ox Aquinas.

"As God is above all things, we should understand what is said of God, not according to the mode of the lowest creatures, namely bodies, but from the similitude of the highest creatures, the intellectual substances; while even the similitudes derived from these fall short in the representation of divine objects. Procession, therefore, is not to be understood from what it is in bodies, either according to local movement or by way of a cause proceeding forth to its exterior effect, as, for instance, like heat from the agent to the thing made hot. Rather it is to be understood by way of an intelligible emanation, for example, of the intelligible word which proceeds from the speaker, yet remains in him. In that sense the Catholic Faith understands procession as existing in God." Summa Theologica
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom