Persons of trinity

[jochoa]

So how each person is God?

Because God chooses to be three distinct persons, distinctly through eternal generation and eternal spiration.

In order to gain a better understanding of the distinctions, I encourage you to grow in Spirit with the Creator of Everything by resolving the following:
In consideration of the Creator of Everything, what is this person’s greatest creation, why create it, and what must logically happen in order to fulfill that creation?

 

[javid]

Hi. We believe in three persons in one God and each person is God.

They have some thing in common: essence

On the other hand, they have real distinction.

SO each person has two parts: essence and distinction, because essence is not their distinction. But god does not have two parts. So how each person is God?

Dear Jochoa

You didn’t read it carefully. Read again and reply , please.

 

[Telstar]

Hi. We believe in three persons in one God and each person is God.

They have some thing in common: essence

On the other hand, they have real distinction.

SO each person has two parts: essence and distinction, because essence is not their distinction. But god does not have two parts. So how each person is God?

Dear Jochoa

You didn’t read it carefully. Read again and reply , please.

Plain and simple, there is only One Essence of God. The Three Persons of the Holy Trinity share that Essence of God, equally. That’s how They are all One God. Even when *we *view them as individuals, They are still together and inseparable from each other.

This discussion is just going around in circles. I don’t know why, but it seems that you are just arguing with us for the sake of arguing. The Holy Trinity of God cannot be further explained by any of us, because we are all incapable of understanding anything about it. It is only believable by our having faith that God is all that He says He is. If you don’t want to believe in the Holy Trinity of God, then there is nothing more that any of us can say that will ever change your mind. Maybe you should pray and ask God to explain it to you, Himself.

 

[javid]

Plain and simple, there is only One Essence of God. The Three Persons of the Holy Trinity share that Essence of God, equally. That’s how They are all One God. Even when *we *view them as individuals, They are still together and inseparable from each other.

This discussion is just going around in circles. I don’t know why, but it seems that you are just arguing with us for the sake of arguing. The Holy Trinity of God cannot be further explained by any of us, because we are all incapable of understanding anything about it. It is only believable by our having faith that God is all that He says He is. If you don’t want to believe in the Holy Trinity of God, then there is nothing more that any of us can say that will ever change your mind. Maybe you should pray and ask God to explain it to you, Himself.

The problem is: you want answer what you want! It is not my Question.

My Question in persons’ distinction.

 

[porthos11]

Dear all

Hi

Please answer the original Question.

But about formulation of trinity, it is not so. God knows and loves himself; so we have a pedson who loves and knows the God And a person who loved And a person who known. Each person is a God, but they are all one God. So persons are not parts, forms or acts pf God.

Now, please answer the Original Question in first post.

We already did, and I said your original question was defective. You claim that “essence” and “distinction” are parts of God, and I said that your premise is incorrect to begin with because “essence” and “distinction” are NOT parts.

I therefore state that your original question is invalid and that it cannot be answered.

 

[4unity]

Dear all

Hi

Please answer the original Question.

But about formulation of trinity, it is not so. God knows and loves himself; so we have a pedson who loves and knows the God And a person who loved And a person who known. Each person is a God, but they are all one God. So persons are not parts, forms or acts pf God.

Now, please answer the Original Question in first post.

Dear Javid,
It is impossible to know every aspect of God because we are mere men.

What we know is that the Son is the one and only true Son of God by his very substance. Point and fact we know lucifer/Satan before he fell from grace was NOT from the Father’s very substance. We know that all the children of God are NOT children by virtue of comming from the Father’s expressed glory but instead are Children by being created from nothing or from the dirt of the ground. This is the key difference Javid, it’s the simple truth that Jesus is the expressed substance of the Father, Jesus alone is the only true Son by substance. There is not such thing as a Angel Jesus. Jesus is the one and only true Son of God.
Jesus is true Son of man = true man AND he is the only true Son of God = true God
This Jews understood Jesus claim very well because it was blasphemy to them because he made himself equal to God the Father by claiming the Father to be his very own true Father.
I have much more to say but first can you understand and agree that Jesus is’nt a Angel and he not Michael BUT instead he is the true Son by glorous substance from the Father. Once you answer this I will explain it further. If you don’t agree that Jesus is the only true Son by substance THEN please explain what he is to you? A man? Michael? Some other angel etc.

Thank you Javid, I await your reply.
4unity.net
Daniel
Sorry about the spelling, replied on my cell phone and its a little tricky when compared to 7 sing a computer.

 

[javid]

We already did, and I said your original question was defective. You claim that “essence” and “distinction” are parts of God, and I said that your premise is incorrect to begin with because “essence” and “distinction” are NOT parts.

I therefore state that your original question is invalid and that it cannot be answered.

Dear pothos1

If you claim that essence is ditinction, it is a irrational claum, because essence is what is common between persons and distinction is what is not common between them.

If you accept that essence is not distinction, then each person has a common essence which shared between persons and a distinction from other persons.

Distinction is real(CCC:256) and if some one deny it he deny the trinity.
Essence is real and if someone deny, he is a atheist.

Now this the problem:

Each person has a real essence and a real distinction. And both are in each person. So my problem is they are parts of each personand each person needs both to exist.

 

[javid]

Dear Javid,
It is impossible to know every aspect of God because we are mere men.

What we know is that the Son is the one and only true Son of God by his very substance. Point and fact we know lucifer/Satan before he fell from grace was NOT from the Father’s very substance. We know that all the children of God are NOT children by virtue of comming from the Father’s expressed glory but instead are Children by being created from nothing or from the dirt of the ground. This is the key difference Javid, it’s the simple truth that Jesus is the expressed substance of the Father, Jesus alone is the only true Son by substance. There is not such thing as a Angel Jesus. Jesus is the one and only true Son of God.
Jesus is true Son of man = true man AND he is the only true Son of God = true God
This Jews understood Jesus claim very well because it was blasphemy to them because he made himself equal to God the Father by claiming the Father to be his very own true Father.
I have much more to say but first can you understand and agree that Jesus is’nt a Angel and he not Michael BUT instead he is the true Son by glorous substance from the Father. Once you answer this I will explain it further. If you don’t agree that Jesus is the only true Son by substance THEN please explain what he is to you? A man? Michael? Some other angel etc.

Thank you Javid, I await your reply.
4unity.net
Daniel
Sorry about the spelling, replied on my cell phone and its a little tricky when compared to 7 sing a computer.

Dear 4unity

Yes we can’t understand many things! But some times thing seems irrational and not incomprehensible. We must show it is not irrational, otherwise a atheist can say “world can exist with no God, but we can’t understand it”

 

[Pitcharan]

Hi. We believe in three persons in one God and each person is God.

They have some thing in common: essence

On the other hand, they have real distinction.

SO each person has two parts: essence and distinction, because essence is not their distinction. But god does not have two parts. So how each person is God?

Essence and distinction are NOT parts. We attribute so many characteristics to God but they do NOT constitute different parts of God.

I wonder how you see ‘essence’ and ‘distinction’ as two different parts of God. If I said your soul is imperishable and also said it is a spirit, does it mean that ‘being imperishable’ and ‘spirit’ are two parts of your soul?

 

[4unity]

Dear 4unity

Yes we can’t understand many things! But some times thing seems irrational and not incomprehensible. We must show it is not irrational, otherwise a atheist can say “world can exist with no God, but we can’t understand it”

Dear Javid,
Yes I agree, so what is your answer to my question. Once you answer this I can understand your foundation and we can build on that. Please read my question and let me know if you agree that Jesus is the only true Son of God by substance.
Life in the Son and in his beautiful name.

Daniel
www.4unity.net

 

[javid]

Essence and distinction are NOT parts. We attribute so many characteristics to God but they do NOT constitute different parts of God.

I wonder how you see ‘essence’ and ‘distinction’ as two different parts of God. If I said your soul is imperishable and also said it is a spirit, does it mean that ‘being imperishable’ and ‘spirit’ are two parts of your soul?

Dear Pitcharan

Persons are not characteristics and each person has each characteristic of God.

On the other hand, characteristics of God does not have real distinction. The self-exist is the omniscient, and the omniscient is the almighty. In the Holy Trinity, the father is not the son, the son is not the holy spirit, and the holy spirit is not the father.

So your answer does not solve the problem.

 

[javid]

Dear Javid,
Yes I agree, so what is your answer to my question. Once you answer this I can understand your foundation and we can build on that. Please read my question and let me know if you agree that Jesus is the only true Son of God by substance.
Life in the Son and in his beautiful name.

Daniel
www.4unity.net

Dear Daniel

I agree. As a christian, I don’t deny my faith, but some problems do exist, that seem to br irrational.

 

[Telstar]

The problem is: you want answer what you want! It is not my Question.

My Question in persons’ distinction.

First, I think we need to define essence and distinction.

essence

• 1. the basic, real, and invariable nature of a thing or its significant individual feature or features
• 1. (as used in philosophy) the inward nature, true substance, or constitution of anything, as opposed to what is accidental, phenomenal, illusory, etc.

dis·tinc·tion

• 1. a difference or contrast between similar things or people.

• 2. ***excellence that sets someone or something apart from others*.**

• 3. **a difference that you can see, hear, smell, feel, etc. **

• 4.** *the separation of things or people into different groups* according to their attributes or *characteristics*.**

God’s essence is His Divine Nature, which is common in all 3 Persons in the Trinity.

The 3 Persons distinction from each other is in the characteristics of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.

I hope this helps.

 

[jochoa]

Dear Jochoa

You didn’t read it carefully. Read again and reply , please.

Although this idea only takes into account two distinct persons, can you perceive the distinct persons of identical twins, triplets, etc as each being the same essence from the following understanding?

In identical siblings, there is initially a person with a single-celled body. Somehow this body identically duplicates itself, and now there are two distinct persons with the exact same single-celled body. Although this process can occur multiple times, there will technically only be two distinct persons, the single unbegotten person and those begotten persons. And of course, in God, there is only one begotten person.

If you can perceive the two distinct persons of identical siblings as being the same essence, I would like to look into the third distinct person of God.

 

[porthos11]

Dear pothos1

If you claim that essence is ditinction, it is a irrational claum, because essence is what is common between persons and distinction is what is not common between them.

If you accept that essence is not distinction, then each person has a common essence which shared between persons and a distinction from other persons.

Distinction is real(CCC:256) and if some one deny it he deny the trinity.
Essence is real and if someone deny, he is a atheist.

Now this the problem:

Each person has a real essence and a real distinction. And both are in each person. So my problem is they are parts of each personand each person needs both to exist.

Essence is NOT distinction, but essence and distinction are NOT two PARTS something. I’m a man, and I’m a human being, and I’m an IT professional. I’m NOT part man, part human, part IT professional.

That’s the logical error of your very first post, claiming that essence and distinction are PARTS of God. They are NOT.

Your premise is invalid, as is your original question.

 

[JonathonofOhio]

Dear sir,

According to the CCC:254, their distinction us real.

You misunderstand. The CCC explains the beliefs in detail without regard to proper definitions of English words. I was merely trying to correct a summary posted by someone else, using words that define the belief more accurately. “Distinction” in the sense used in the post I quoted could indicate that they are “contrasting”. My point was to clarify both what the CCC is trying to explain, and what the Church Fathers teach in their writings concerning the Trinity, using words that are more better suited for explaining it.

 

[javid]

First, I think we need to define essence and distinction.

essence

• 1. the basic, real, and invariable nature of a thing or its significant individual feature or features
• 1. (as used in philosophy) the inward nature, true substance, or constitution of anything, as opposed to what is accidental, phenomenal, illusory, etc.

dis·tinc·tion

• 1. a difference or contrast between similar things or people.

• 2. ***excellence that sets someone or something apart from others***.

• 3. **a difference that you can see, hear, smell, feel, etc. **

• 4.** *the separation of things or people into different groups*** according to their attributes or *characteristics*.

God’s essence is His Divine Nature, which is common in all 3 Persons in the Trinity.

The 3 Persons distinction from each other is in the characteristics of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.

I hope this helps.

Dear talstar

According to your model:

Person=essence+ special characteristics

And it does contadict simplicity of God.

 

[javid]

Essence is NOT distinction, but essence and distinction are NOT two PARTS something. I’m a man, and I’m a human being, and I’m an IT professional. I’m NOT part man, part human, part IT professional.

That’s the logical error of your very first post, claiming that essence and distinction are PARTS of God. They are NOT.

Your premise is invalid, as is your original question.

Dear porthos11

It is modalism. Persons are not names or acts or forms or characteristics of God. Each person is God and has his all charasteristics.

I do not talk about God’s essence. Peroblem is on the persons. Each person has a common essence and a distinction. You do not want call it parts? O.K how ever we gave this:

Person=essence+distinction

And it is thd problem, because each prrson needs his essence and dustinction to exit.

 

[javid]

You misunderstand. The CCC explains the beliefs in detail without regard to proper definitions of English words. I was merely trying to correct a summary posted by someone else, using words that define the belief more accurately. “Distinction” in the sense used in the post I quoted could indicate that they are “contrasting”. My point was to clarify both what the CCC is trying to explain, and what the Church Fathers teach in their writings concerning the Trinity, using words that are more better suited for explaining it.

Dear sir

Distinction is real!

 

[porthos11]

Dear porthos11

It is modalism. Persons are not names or acts or forms or characteristics of God. Each person is God and has his all charasteristics.

I do not talk about God’s essence. Peroblem is on the persons. Each person has a common essence and a distinction. You do not want call it parts? O.K how ever we gave this:

Person=essence+distinction

And it is thd problem, because each prrson needs his essence and dustinction to exit.

It’s not modalism. Again, you are wrong and this is the crux of the problem.

Person IS NOT essence “+” distinction. There is where you are wrong.

A person has an essence. Correct. You, for example are fully human.
A person also has distinction. Correct. You are not me. You are fully you.

But essence and distinction are not “parts” of a person such as my arm and my head are parts of me. You are no less human because for some reason you are more like me. Essence and distinction refer to two distinct concepts of existence, not parts of an entity.

Therefore your original question is invalid because your original premise is invalid and illogical, broken down thus:

Primary premise: Each Person of the Trinity is part essence and part distinction (that’s a rephrasing of your question in premise form).
Secondary premise: God has no parts
Therefore: Each Person cannot be God.

This fails because the primary premise is invalid: essence and distinction are not parts of a person. They are something each person possesses, but are not parts.

Your question essentially phrases the conclusion in question form, but with the invalid primary premise, it, just like the conclusion is invalid, and therefore cannot be given a reasonable answer.