I'm leaving Catholicism

[JapaneseKappa]

The only thing you’ve done is say that I’m wrong without supporting it.

I haven’t said its wrong, just given you a caution. But since the caution has not been heeded, here we go!

Question: How many beings meet the necessary and sufficient conditions for being God?

 

[ColoradoCatholic]

See now you are avoiding what we were talking about.

There is only one God who is a being that is three persons. A person is any being with the potential for rational thought. Rational thought being the capacity to make decisions, ask questions, etc.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

There is only one God who is a being that is three persons. A person is any being with the potential for rational thought. Rational thought being the capacity to make decisions, ask questions, etc.

So simple substitution-of-the-definition reveals that you are saying:

There is only one God who is a being that is three beings with the potential for rational thought.

And can I assume that this means you are asserting there is only one being that meets the necessary and sufficient conditions for being God? So each of the three beings with potential for rational thought do not meet the necessary and sufficient conditions, correct?

 

[ColoradoCatholic]

I honestly don’t know what you are talking about “substitution of definition”? What I am saying is what the Catholic Church believes. What Christians believe. There is nothing to “reveal” and yes there is only one being who is God.

THIS is where you are substituting your own definition of God and Personhood —> So each of the three beings with potential for rational thought do not meet the necessary and sufficient conditions, correct?

I never said God was three beings. He is one being. You are presupposing that a being can only be one person. but I’ve already said that there are beings with different numbers of persons. A dog is a being, but not a person. A human is a being and one person. If the person-hood of a being is able to differentiate…then it follows that it is at least possible for there to be a single being who is three persons.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

I honestly don’t know what you are talking about “substitution of definition”?

This is fairly basic logic.

You have said that the definition of (person) is (being capable of rational thought). Therefore in any assertion about (persons), I can validly replace (person) with (being capable of rational thought) without changing the truth value of the assertion.

I never said God was three beings. He is one being.

Right, and you said he was:

a being that is three persons.

And each (person) is a (being capable of rational thought). So you are asserting that God is one being that is three (being capable of rational thought).

You are presupposing that a being can only be one person. but I’ve already said that there are beings with different numbers of persons.

You have not said this before, at least not since you gave a proper definition for person. This invalidates your earlier definition, because earlier you said that a person IS a being capable of rational thought, but now you are saying that a person is something the being-capable-of-rational-thought possesses. (i.e. precisely the claim that @Theban made and I pointed out to you).

 

[po18guy]

I must here ask: If your mind and heart are closed (or simply resistant), what is your purpose here? One could reasonably suspect that you are trolling, sea lioning, clickbaiting or just killing time during the quarantine.

Or are you indeed searching?

Billions of Christians over 2,000 years - the greatest thinkers, spiritual leaders, prophets, sages, theologians, philosophers, Doctors of the Church, great Saints - indeed all - have either not suffered your current difficulty, or have overcome it via faith and reason. They did not use faith alone. Neither did they rely on rational through alone.

Faith and reason.

You came here. You are still here. There is a reason.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Billions of Christians over 2,000 years - the greatest thinkers, spiritual leaders, prophets, sages, theologians, philosophers, Doctors of the Church, great Saints - indeed all - have either not suffered your current difficulty, or have overcome it via faith and reason.

Billions of Christians over 2000 years have suffered this difficulty–it is declared a mystery for a reason. They have all decided to live with this because of faith:

• The hypostatic union must be believed because of religious doctrine, so it is asserted to be true.
• There is no way to explicitly define the terms used in the hypostatic union which
  A. Resolves the apparent contradiction
  B. Doesn’t deviate so far from the ordinary meaning of the words that it renders the doctrine nonsensical
• Because of 2, it is asserted to be a mystery which means you hide your refusal to define your terms behind the assertion that you are not quite sure what the doctrine actually means
• Because the terms in your doctrine are now undefined, no critic can show it to to be self-contradictory, and if they do you can simply assert they’ve used the wrong definition for some term in the doctrine.

 

[po18guy]

Well, true. But, there is a spiritual consolation that is not available via purely rational thought.

What does this matter if one is obstinately refusing to investigate further?

My point.

 

[ColoradoCatholic]

I think that you are so focused on “winning” this discussion that you wouldn’t listen to me either way.

You keep saying that any being can only be one person at a time. This is false…as I’ve stated two times already. You keep putting words in my mouth which shows me you aren’t really concerned with having a discussion as much as you are simply trying to prove me wrong or make me look foolish.

Once again…I never used this as my definition ( something the being-capable-of-rational-thought possesses) this was that other guys definition…and honestly i dont know why you are bring him up because I DONT KNOW WHO THIS IS LOL

God is Three persons in one being. NOT three beings.

But I should ask if you even believe in a God at all?

 

[JapaneseKappa]

I think that you are so focused on “winning” this discussion that you wouldn’t listen to me either way… You keep putting words in my mouth

I am applying elementary logic to the words you say. If you do not like the immediate logical consequences of what you say, you should say other things.

You keep saying that any being can only be one person at a time. This is false…

You have given a very clear definition:

a person is any being with the potential for rational thought

So if we have (a being with the potential for rational thought) it is a (person) full stop. This is literally what you are saying.

Now let me demonstrate how silly it sounds to say a being can be more than one person given that definition. Consider, for example, this definition of a dog:

A dog is any domesticated carnivorous mammal in the Canis familiaris species.

So just like in your case, if we have (a domesticated carnivorous mammal in the Canis familiaris species) we have a (dog), full stop.

What would it mean if we said:

(a domesticated carnivorous mammal in the Canis familiaris species) can be more than one (dog.)

It literally doesn’t make sense, just like with your person definition.

It doesn’t matter if we refer to the (dog) or the (domesticated carnivorous mammal in the Canis familiaris species), they are literally the same thing, so if we make the “more than one” assertion, we are literally asserting that an animal can be more than one of itself, which is impossible.

Likewise with your person definition, the “multiple persons” assertion is non-sensical. A being can only be itself, it cannot be more than one of itself.

 

[MarkRome]

It was the result of a committee after all.

That’s just being cynical. It actually was the result of the promise Jesus made that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church into all truth.

Mind if I ask what religious affiliation you are?

 

[esieffe]

We wish you the very best.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

lack of support in early Christian theology, it is very very hard to make a case for it.
It was the result of a committee after all.

Both of these are blatant lies. Trinitarian theology existed and was very popular before the Council of Nicea and was confirmed, not created, at that council. Please stop using falsehoods to push your heretical beliefs.

 

[Dolphin]

I’ve taken college classes studying early Christian theology and this “trinity being decided by a committee” is nonsense. It’s as @Capta(name removed by moderator)rudeman says.

 

[Dudd]

Because Father said that Jesus is his Son, yet Jesus said he is son of “a man”.

Son of man like you and I are, Son of God - a son of man/human with a divine Father. I can agree Jesus is divine and shares attributes with the Father, that’s what Jesus meant in Mathew 28:18.

“And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.”

But I cannot agree with a Trinity the way it’s taught.

He was a Messiah, yet John the Baptist was greatest of those who have come from woman. That means either of two things;

1. Jesus did not come from woman.
2. John the Baptist was greater than Jesus.

Which one do you believe it is?

There are certainly more ‘options’ than that since God the Father is the father of Jesus. I think you need to see what Jesus meant when he said that John was greater.

"Verily I say unto you, “Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.”

Immediately after stating John is the greatest “among those born of women,” Jesus says, “Yet whoever is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.”

So why would Jesus hold John in high esteem?

Mathew 11:13-14
For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come.

John preached with the power of Elijah, was chosen by God as the forerunner to the Messiah and his mission was to personally prepare the world for Christ’s arrival.

John’s ministry was predicted in Isaiah and Malachi.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

Early Christianity had no such consensus.
a) Some felt Jesus was just a man
b) Some felt that the Son was replacing the God of the Old Testament
c) Some felt Jesus was subservient to the Father
…and many more

A multiplicity of beliefs does not mean one was not overwhelmingly common.

The Trinity is never mentioned explicitly nor even implied in the Bible. The theological term used is “formulatic”, such as preaching in the “name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit”.

It’s implicitly derived from scripture and explicit in extra-scriptural teaching.

There are phrases in the Gospels that just as much contradict the Trinity as support it (“This is my son of whom I am well-pleased”).

Jesus being Son of the Father is…kinda an essential part of the Trinity?

The Trinity wasn’t even mentioned until the late 2nd century, and required a Council to formalize it 150 years later.

Also false, but I assume you’ll continue to make this claim without supporting it. A council formalizing something doesn’t mean it isn’t common, just that a large group has sprung up which opposes traditional theology. Arianism wasn’t a huge issue before the Council was called.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

If you have taken such classes then you know that there are more than two dozen alternate Gospels, many of which dispute the Trinity, which have been subverted over time.

None of which were divinely inspired. There’s a reason they aren’t the Gospels.

You seem to be missing my point. The concept of the Trinity was NOT universal.

Just a belief shared by most of the early Church fathers.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

All of those verses support aspects of the Trinity that have been a part of its theology since Nicea, like Monarchy of the Father or the Father and Son.

Try an experiment - have someone who has never read the Gospels read them.

Acting like having someone interpret scripture themselves, something we are told by scripture never to do, would support your point shows me you are not educated in the teachings of the Church and have instead learned from anti-Trinitarian sources exclusively. When you actually know what the Church teaches about the Trinity, this conversation can be resumed. Otherwise, I’m done responding.

 

[Dolphin]

These gospels have been dispelled or rejected because of either a lack of unique info, not sharing a confirmed source, or having conflicting information. No reason to use a source that is unreliable as the basis of a theological claim.

Of course there were issues with the Filioque at this time in Church history but to suggest the entire trinity was not conceptualized is unfounded.

 

[Dudd]

Why is Holy Spirit called “Spirit of the Son” then? Holy Spirit is Spirit of the Father, no? And as such, how can God’s spirit belong to someone else?

Yet Church baptized (as Bible told them to) in name of Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. That would mean they baptized in name of God, Human and… God’s force or whatever you think Holy Spirit is.

The Holy spirit is one spirit - Spirit of God -with many manifestations. Each spirit - of the seven spirits of God - around the throne has a different manifestation or function and purpose. Those 7 are the same spirit that is in all things of God. There’s a difference between the Holy spirit that is sent from Christ that dwells within a believe and the seven spirits of God.

I challenge you to look at John’s description of the Throne and explain to me why this no named person of a trinity isn’t present. I derive from the bible that the Holy spirit likely comes from the 7 spirit’s of God who are likely different hierarchies Archangels and angels.