The Trinity

The Trinity


  • Total voters
    121

steko

Well-known member
No I am not talking to myself when I am talking to God.

Good answer!
I am sure I talk to myself sometimes instead of God too.

Yes, that's the question: When you talk to yourself, is Meshak talking to Meshak?

thinking and talking are very much the same, IMO.

Yes!

what are you getting at?

When you talk to yourself, is Meshak talking to Meshak or is Meshak talking to another being?
 

meshak

BANNED
Good answer!


Yes, that's the question: When you talk to yourself, is Meshak talking to Meshak?



Yes!



When you talk to yourself, is Meshak talking to Meshak or is Meshak talking to another being?

I told you I don't like this kind of game.

I don't like beating around bush type talk.

why the ambiguity?


give to me strait.
 

steko

Well-known member
I told you I don't like this kind of game.

I don't like beating around bush type talk.

why the ambiguity?


give to me strait.

There is no ambiquity.

It's the simple observation of what goes on inside one's head when talking to themselves.

Are there two beings talking or one?

When Steko is talking to Steko inside Steko's head, is Steko one being or two?
 

iamaberean

New member


Back up and get the entire context. The opening of Acts 17 has Paul entering the synagogue on three Sabbaths. What is he doing in there?

And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,
Opening and alleging...


That "opening and alleging" means "explaining and proving".

Paul's efforts were met by some of the Jews of Thessalonica with anger.

Paul and Silas go to Berea and Paul goes to the synagogue. What is he doing in there? The same thing he did in Thessalonica, using Scripture and explaining and proving what Scripture has to say. The Bereans took what Paul had to say under consideration (that is they received his words), then studied Scripture to see if what Paul was saying to them was true.

So, be like these Bereans who took every word they heard captive. You have been given much resources to review. Now go do so and compare what you study to what Scripture has to say.

AMR






Yes, explaining and proving scripture is what a berean does. There isn't any scripture that even uses the word trinity. That ends all debate.
 

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Yes, explaining and proving scripture is what a berean does. There isn't any scripture that even uses the word trinity. That ends all debate.
The word "divinity" does not appear in Scripture. Do you deny the divinity of God?
The word "atheism" does not appear in Scripture? Do you deny the existence of atheists?

I suspect you would not deny the above and many more I could offer up? Why? Because when you carefully examine the full counsel of Scripture you discover the factuality of the divinity of God and the atheist who denies God even exists. So why is it you are willing to do this for these things and more, but when it comes to your hobby horse, you refuse? This is double-mindedness, not to mention foolishness. You might as well argue that since your name does not appear explicitly in Scripture, there is no evidence that you actually exist. :AMR:

Not all things in Scripture are equally clear. If they were there would be no need for the notion of a Berean, now would there? Absence of a word is not evidence that which is described by the word is absent. I have provided you with pointers to plenty of Scripture and explanation of the same. Now go be a true Berean and cease with this immaturity you are demonstrating.

AMR
 

iamaberean

New member

The word "divinity" does not appear in Scripture. Do you deny the divinity of God?
The word "atheism" does not appear in Scripture? Do you deny the existence of atheists?

I suspect you would not deny the above and many more I could offer up? Why? Because when you carefully examine the full counsel of Scripture you discover the factuality of the divinity of God and the atheist who denies God even exists. So why is it you are willing to do this for these things and more, but when it comes to your hobby horse, you refuse? This is double-mindedness, not to mention foolishness. You might as well argue that since your name does not appear explicitly in Scripture, there is no evidence that you actually exist. :AMR:

Not all things in Scripture are equally clear. If they were there would be no need for the notion of a Berean, now would there? Absence of a word is not evidence that which is described by the word is absent. I have provided you with pointers to plenty of Scripture and explanation of the same. Now go be a true Berean and cease with this immaturity you are demonstrating.

AMR

I understand exactly what you are saying. That no matter how many scriptures declare God is one, you are right so the bible has to be wrong.
 

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
I understand exactly what you are saying. That no matter how many scriptures declare God is one, you are right so the bible has to be wrong.
There is but one God. That there are real distinctions in the Godhead does not make three Gods. The Persons of the Godhead do not divide up the singular essence of God, making three Gods. In other words, God is one simple (having no constituent parts) essence, with three subsistencesPersons—that do not divide the essence of the one absolute God.

In Philippians 2:6 the Apostle defines what a Person of the Godhead is: a form of God. These forms of God are three. This word form is not to be used in the sense that Unitarians, Modalistic Monarchians, Oneness Pentecostals, or Sabellians would use them, as if God were acting, masquerading, and manifesting in three different manners. Understanding the Godhead is not helped by the plethora of terms that have been used to describe the personal distinctions within the Godhead. In the Greek we will encounter, hypostasis (Hebrews 1:3), hypokeimenon , or prosopon (Luke 12:56). In the Latin, we find substantia and persona used. Lastly, in the English, hypostasis, subsistence, distinction, person, relation, and mode. So when we speak of these Biblical matters, we need to set aside our contemporary notions of what all these terms mean to us today and let the past saints speak and give meaning to these terms as they have been understood in Biblical contexts throughout history.

The first person is the whole divine ousia (essence) subsisting (hyparchon) in the paternal form (morphe)—God the Father. The second person is the whole divine essence subsisting in filial form (John 5:26)—God the Son. The third person is the whole divine essence subsisting in the spirated form (John 15:16)—God the Holy Spirit.

These three Persons are different, having real distinctions made clear from Scripture. This is why we must not claim the actions of one Person of the Godhead can be equally assigned to another Person of the Godhead. For example, we know from Scripture that God the Father sends God the Son. We cannot say that God the Son sends God the Son. We read in Scripture that God the Father loves God the Son. We cannot say that God the Son loves God the Son. Rather Scripture teaches us that each of the persons of the Trinity are objective to one another: Phil. 2:5–11; Heb. 2:9; Gen. 16:7; John 14:26; Isa. 9:6; Gen. 1:26; 11:7; John 17:5; Luke 3:22; John 14:6; Heb. 1:8; Matt. 11:27; Zech. 13:7; John 14:10–11; John 3:35.

God’s essence—eternal, incorporeal, without parts—is common to the three Persons. The essence of God is not communicated from one to another as in some sort of football-like handoff. Rather, each of the divine Persons possesses the entire, numerically one essence and possess the essence as one undivided nature—“as all the fullness of the Godhead dwells in Christ”, like so in the Holy Spirit; and of the Father. A fullness of being implies a variety of existence. One God who eternally exists in three different persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, all of whom are fully God, all of whom are equal (Romans 16:26; Revelations 1:17; Matthew 28:20; Acts 17:28-29; John 14-16).

AMR
 
Last edited:
Top