T
Thom18
Guest
Is God limited by mathematics? No. Is mathematics insufficient to describe Him? Absolutely.
- Status
M
mhmtas63
Guest
5:19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. (John 5)
44 How can you believe since you accept glory from one another but do not seek the glory that comes from the only God (John 5)
44 How can you believe since you accept glory from one another but do not seek the glory that comes from the only God (John 5)
V
Vico
Guest
Jesus is a Prophet and King but also true God and true man. At the Council of Nicaea (325 A.D.) Arianism (that God the Son is not co-eternal with God the Father) was condemned as heretical.
John 1
John 14
John 20
Last edited:
Z
Zach
Guest
To focus on the relationships of the one substance. The one substance has three relationships just as one human being has different relationships. The human can be related to others as a father, a son and a husband. One human. Three relationships. Likewise the one substance God has three relationships. This way nothing is added to the substance and it’s relationships contrary to other analogies, no word or breath or different consciousness or knowledge. Maybe @Wesrock or others more knowledgeable than I am with Aquinas and other theologians can comment on what they said in this regard.
S
SeekerOfTruth7
Guest
Son of God via adoption if you believe in Jesus Christ as say John 1:12. Jesus is the Son of God by nature. We are the sons and daughters of God but adoption if we receive Jesus as Lord and Savior and Messiah and follow Him. But everyone else is a child of wrath. Ephesians 2:3-5
S
SeekerOfTruth7
Guest
Jesus always points the Father as God since Jesus was a human and a good Jew. But that doesn’t negate that Jesus is the second Person of the Trinity. Explain how it would?
And there are numerous passages to take into account instead of proof texting two verses and saying you have proved it. All Scripture is inspired and beneficial for teaching not just one or two.
We have John 1:1 in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.
Later in the passage we see that the Word is Jesus the Son.
And we have passages in all three synoptic a Gospels where Jesus calls himself the Lord of the Sabbath. That’s blasphemy if it’s not true for only God is the Lord of the Sabbath.
And we have the strongest evidence. John 20:28 Thomas answers Him: My Lord and My God. The Apostle Thomas affirms that Jesus is the Lord and God of us. And Jesus blesses him and those who believing who don’t see but have faith.
Evidence is overwhelming.
And there are numerous passages to take into account instead of proof texting two verses and saying you have proved it. All Scripture is inspired and beneficial for teaching not just one or two.
We have John 1:1 in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.
Later in the passage we see that the Word is Jesus the Son.
And we have passages in all three synoptic a Gospels where Jesus calls himself the Lord of the Sabbath. That’s blasphemy if it’s not true for only God is the Lord of the Sabbath.
And we have the strongest evidence. John 20:28 Thomas answers Him: My Lord and My God. The Apostle Thomas affirms that Jesus is the Lord and God of us. And Jesus blesses him and those who believing who don’t see but have faith.
Evidence is overwhelming.
Last edited:
L
lelinator
Guest
I just wanted to pop in and say thanks, and to let you know that I actually do stop and think about what people say sometimes. Not often, but sometimes. And this time it turned out to be quite helpful. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not buying Aquinas’ whole “The Holy Spirit is the love between the Father and the Son” argument, but I do think that in some odd way, he might have been on the right track. I just think that he was being a little bit hokey in referring to it as “love”.
Anyway, my understanding of the Trinity…as unconventional as it may be…is a little bit clearer now, and a great deal of the credit for that goes to you. So thanks. And I’m sorry, but I don’t think that you get a badge for that.
A
AlNg
Guest
It does seem that God as described by the Jews or the Muslims is simpler. They describe One God with One will.
M
mhmtas63
Guest
1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
1:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
John 1
There is nothing about Jesus to be Son of God by nature. Instead every one can be Sons of God.
Jesus was born without a father by a miracle. So Father or Son of God are metaphors.
M
mhmtas63
Guest
Just strained interpretations. I can explain all your misinterpretations. There nothing about Jesus to be God. Jesus was a prophet. The beyond that is your conjectures. We do not follow conjectures. We follow revelation. Revelation said that God is one. Not three.
M
mhmtas63
Guest
Then we can say God could be four or five or six or seven … Mathematics can not explain that because maths is insufficient.
W
Wesrock
Guest
First, thank you for the compliment in your original post (not quoted).
Maybe I can make the love a little less hokey. For St. Thomas there are two senses to love, the emotional, sensitive kind we get as animals is the first sense of what we mean by love. Feelings, emotions, etc… Stuff angels and God cannot do (through his divine nature) as pure intellects. However, he also pointed out that love can be understood as a rational/intellectual action as willing the good of another. God by necessity and is essentially eternally willing his own goodness, and this procession of the will begins and terminates in God (nothing external). So when St. Thomas speaks of the Holy Spirit as a procession of love between the Father and Son, he does not mean it in the animal, sensitive, emotional way. He means it in the intelligible action way, in which God wills his own goodness. And for it being between the Father and Son/Logos, it makes even more sense if you agree with the Thomist position that the Will follows the Intellect. A person’s rational choices/acts are based on what one knows. (For contrast, there are philosophers who say the intellect follows the will.)
Sorry for the redundant post. I’m a little hurried.
Last edited:
E
EndTimes
Guest
Was not God’s Messiah to be born of a Virgin?
W
Wesrock
Guest
Four, five, six, or seven what?Thom18:
Then we can say God could be four or five or six or seven … Mathematics can not explain that because maths is insufficient.
E
EndTimes
Guest
However - when one looks closer into either the Messiah or ISA -
as found within respective Scriptures.
- inevidably - one comes directly back to: God, God the Father and Allah;
albeit - with what comes across as insufficient understandings of their Source and Nature
Last edited:
M
mhmtas63
Guest
Persons in relation! Maths cannot explain that because it is mystery:wink:
Last edited:
W
Wesrock
Guest
That’s counter to revelation and apostolic teaching on God.Wesrock:
Persons in relation! Maths cannot explain that because it is mystery:wink:
There’s only two processions that begin and terminate in the Godhead, four resulting relationships, and three real relations, without possibility for more.
L
lelinator
Guest
Actually that does sort of inch it a little bit closer to what I was thinking. As you know I believe that three things that can be known to exist. Consciousness…okay that one’s pretty obvious. After all, cogito ergo sum as they say. And then there’s reality. Whether it’s an actual physical reality or simply a mental construct of some sort I can’t be certain, but it’s still pretty obvious that it’s there. So that’s two things.
But there’s one more thing that’s there. It’s easy to overlook, but it’s still obvious that it’s there. And that’s order…coherency…things make sense…they follow rules. But where do those rules come from? My consciousness can’t exist without them, and reality can’t exist without them either, so it would seem that neither of them can be the cause of the rules, because neither of them can exist without the rules.
But do the rules need a cause? For example does the fact that 1+1=2 need a cause? I think that the obvious answer is no. So both my consciousness, and reality share something in common, something that they can’t exist without. And it’s something that’s neither conscious, nor physical, and yet it must exist. And thus there are three things that I can know exist.
Now is that third thing…the thing that neither consciousness nor reality can exist without…is that what Aquinas refers to as “love”? I don’t know, but I do think that it’s an interesting question to ponder.
For me as a solipsist, reality can be known to consist of three things, and I find it interesting how those three things can be related to the Catholic concept of the Trinity. I just think that the Catholic concept of the Trinity doesn’t quite capture the real essence of what the Trinity represents.
Last edited:
S
SeekerOfTruth7
Guest
You have bad interpretation and clear eisegesis. The text is clear. John 1:12 is talking about us not Jesus. We become sons of god when we receive the Son. But He was already the Son. He doesn’t become the Son when He receives Himself. Doesn’t make sense. A few chapters later in John 5 verse 19 John shows that Jesus is equal to the Father in calling Himself God’s Son. The passages don’t call Jesus the Son of God simply because He was born by a miraculous birth, they call Him Son of God because he is Son in relation to the Father, according to the rest of Scripture and according to Apostolic Tradition which has more authority than an Arabian man speaking things against the revealed truths of the New Testament and the Tradition that has been handed on since then
Last edited:
J
John_Martin
Guest
Not three apples equal one apple. That is flawed and faulty mathematics.
God pouring himself TOTALLY OUT, his whole being, is the Father (a person).
God knowing himself as poured, and pouring his whole self back is the Son (a person).
God WHOLLY flowing purposefully and willfully is the Holy Spirit (a person).
If you look at the Father, you see only the Father, all of God, One God.
If you look at the Son, you see only the Son, all of God, One God.
If you look at the movement of the Holy Spirit, you only see the movement, all of God, One God.
You cannot look at Father and Son and Spirit in one Looking, since you (we) cannot see all in one sight.
With our God, everything is One on One, Personal - One to One, “I” to “I AM”, and you are only dealing with one, wholly God, in your personal interaction. Are you talking to the Father? are you talking to the Son? are you talking to the Holy Spirit? You cannot see the other persons when regarding the one.
God pouring himself TOTALLY OUT, his whole being, is the Father (a person).
God knowing himself as poured, and pouring his whole self back is the Son (a person).
God WHOLLY flowing purposefully and willfully is the Holy Spirit (a person).
If you look at the Father, you see only the Father, all of God, One God.
If you look at the Son, you see only the Son, all of God, One God.
If you look at the movement of the Holy Spirit, you only see the movement, all of God, One God.
You cannot look at Father and Son and Spirit in one Looking, since you (we) cannot see all in one sight.
With our God, everything is One on One, Personal - One to One, “I” to “I AM”, and you are only dealing with one, wholly God, in your personal interaction. Are you talking to the Father? are you talking to the Son? are you talking to the Holy Spirit? You cannot see the other persons when regarding the one.
- Status