Easy Target: Possible Analogies for Uncreated Triune Being

[Ramadhan]

You take a human being as a partner of God (SWT), that is the ultimate idolatry, YO.

 

[Ramadhan]

Let me give you a contrast again:

In christianiy, the concept of God is so convoluted, contradictory, illogical and in this forum alone requires hundreds of pages and pages of discussions, and yet no one understand and agree what it is that constitute God in christianity (in this forum alone, you have christians like sol who believe Jesus is the one god, and then YO who believe Jesus is not the one god but very god, then you have pouring rain who believes jesus is a messenger, and hiroshi who believe jesus is not god but was made divine by god, etc.. so please the real christian stand up?). It seems in order to undertand christianity creed, you have to be a select people like grace seeker who is a pastor, or you need to study in seminary.
No christian have been able to successfully and satisfyingly explain to non-christian who/what God means in christianity.

In Islam, the concept of God is so sublime that EVERYONE understand it, whether you are a theoretical physicist in Princeton, NJ, or a subsistence farmer in the remotest area of Indonesia, and not only understand it, they are all also able to explain fully and satisfyingly to non-muslims who/what God is in Islam.

Which one do you think is the truth?

 

[Ramadhan]

For the record, Islamic "Tawhid" is a SUBSET of monotheistic belief. Monotheism and Tawhid are NOT synonomous terms.

LOL! sneaky YO.

Just because you want to label your 3-in-1 God belief as monotheistic, you have gone bent over backwards to redefine meanings of words.

You can label your belief monotheistic and scream till the cows come home that your triune god is indeed monotheistic, it does not change the fact that you worship 3 distinct persons God, and at the end of the day you worship one of them who was a human walking, sleeping, crying, eating, etc on earth.

 

[Sol Invictus]

Now, let's get down to the points you falsely attributed to me (can't you just be honest for once? or are you actually that dense and full of hate?)

hmm, which point did i falsely attribute to you? will you now deny that you said the following?:

Muslims believe in God who is not "almost everybody".

And this is the latest example how you keep attributing human personalities to God.

naidamar, it's understandable to be embarrassed concerning the above logic.

 

[Sol Invictus]

In Islam, God DOES NOT have a "multiplicity of eternals"

false. once you claim that an entity other than god (i.e. the qur'an) is eternal then you have just multiplied eternals.

 

[Ramadhan]

hmm, which point did i falsely attribute to you? will you now deny that you said the following?:

I was making that statement, but I certainly did not make the different premises that you were trying slyly to make me answer for it.

You are pretty transparent, Sol.

naidamar, it's understandable to be embarrassed concerning the above logic.

anything I may have done wouldn't be nearly embarrassing as worshipping a God which is not all knowing.

Or believing in a book that has pericope adulterae, and outright fabrication and attributing it to God, just because the passage 'fit" into the personality of God(s).

Sol, I hope you have brushed up on your gospels and see if you can answer br. Hamza's posts in the other thread.

 

[Ramadhan]

false. once you claim that an entity other than god (i.e. the qur'an) is eternal then you have just multiplied eternals.

Newsflash: we do not worship qur'an.
our knowledge on the nature of the Qur'an has no bearing whatsoever on our core belief.

Christians (well, most christians as there are other christians who do not worship Jesus) worship a man who was born out of a virgin, suckled the breast of the virgin, cried helplessly, took toilet breaks, cried despondently asking for help from God, and then call this man eternal.
Meanwhile, christianity (thats right, the people who claim to follow Jesus couldnt even call the real name of jesus, which was not jesus, by the way if you dont know) must believe that the man who was crucified half naked (thanks to those zillions statues in your churches, sol) was actually God himself.

 

[Sol Invictus]

Newsflash: we do not worship qur'an.

where did i say that you worshiped the qur'an? are you having trouble with language again naidamar? now given that i have corrected your misunderstanding, can you now try to actually refute my point that given that the qur'an is not god and yet muslims claim that it is eternal, you now have multiplied eternals (in that there are now two eternals, god and the qur'an).

 

[Sol Invictus]

I was making that statement, but I certainly did not make the different premises that you were trying slyly to make me answer for it.

who claimed that you made those premises? do you not understand how an argument works? you said something that was factually wrong and thus i made a simple syllogism to show how you were wrong. do you not know what a syllogism is? those premises and conclusion are what constitute a syllogism. in fact, i have repeatedly called it "my syllogism" and not "your syllogism" so no one was ever saying that you made up those premises. today you are certainly having trouble with the english language naidamar.

 

[Ramadhan]

where did i say that you worshiped the qur'an? are you having trouble with language again naidamar? now given that i have corrected your misunderstanding, can you now try to actually refute my point that given that the qur'an is not god and yet muslims claim that it is eternal, you now have multiplied eternals (in that there are now two eternals, god and the qur'an).

an eternal does not make God.
Isn't this obvious? unless you have very weak logic, which I am afraid you might be suffering. Maybe it's a case from worshipping a man as God, and 1+1+1 = 1?

Now, please refute my point that Christians believe in God who is not all knowing.
I have mentioned this several times already in this thread, and I am afraid YO is just unable to refute it, unless you also believe in God who is not all knowing?

 

[Ramadhan]

who claimed that you made those premises? do you not understand how an argument works? you said something that was factually wrong and thus i made a simple syllogism to show how you were wrong. do you not know what a syllogism is? those premises and conclusion are what constitute a syllogism. in fact, i have repeatedly called it "my syllogism" and not "your syllogism" so no one was ever saying that you made up those premises. today you are certainly having trouble with the english language naidamar.

Yes, I maybe having trouble with english as it is my fourth language.

Speaking about language, what language did jesus speak?
a. first century aramaic
b. first century hebrew
c. third century koine greek
d. middle age english
e. modern english
?

 

[Ramadhan]

Since we are still in the triune God thread, I want to ask something which I've been meaning to ask to all christians:

Since (most) christians believe that Jesus is God and he is now on the right hand (shoulder?) of the main christian deity, does he still look like what he was on earth?

 

[gmcbroom]

Naidamar,
Yes if that is what he chose to appear as. Why do I say that? Simple. After his death he appeared to multiple people yet they did not recognize him until he did something specific that would reveal himself to them. For instance he appeared to 2 of his own followers after the crucifixtion who were travelling along the road away from Jerusalem, depressed for they saw him die crucified, and they thought that their faith was in vain. They didn't know he was resurrected until he blessed and broke bread the bread before them at an inn where they ate even though he travelled with them along the road before hand. Then their faith was restored. As for what does he look like now? Does he still have the marks of the crucifixtion? Possibly.

Peace be with you.

 

[Ramadhan]

Yes if that is what he chose to appear as. Why do I say that? Simple. After his death he appeared to multiple people yet they did not recognize him until he did something specific that would reveal himself to them. For instance he appeared to 2 of his own followers after the crucifixtion who were travelling along the road away from Jerusalem, depressed for they saw him die crucified, and they thought that their faith was in vain. They didn't know he was resurrected until he blessed and broke bread the bread before them at an inn where they ate even though he travelled with them along the road before hand. Then their faith was restored. As for what does he look like now? Does he still have the marks of the crucifixtion? Possibly.

OK.

Has Jesus *always* looked like what he is now?

Remember that christians believe Jesus had no beginning right?

Sol, where are you?

 

[YieldedOne]

If the following things are NOT contrary to logic OR completely inconceivable by human experience...then I don't see how the analogies could NOT be meaningful. The analogies themselves build on JUST these kinds of concepts below...

---------------------------

1) The ONLY reason for God the Father being "YHWH" is his simple identity: God the Father is "YHWH". As such, God The Father is underivatively YHWH (aka the "Unbegotten God" )

2) The ONLY reason for Jesus being "YHWH" is that he is the Son/Word of God the Father, being the "exact representation" of God the Father's nature and being. As such, the Son/Word of God the Father is derivatively YHWH (aka the "Only-begotten God"), because He is an self-disclosing image of who God the Father is.

3) The ONLY divine Hypostasis that a) has aseity and thus b) is completely underivative is God the Father. That is to say, only God the Father contains within himself the source/"origin" of himself. Both the Word and the Spirit have their source/origin in God the Father.

and...

"In the same way we must think of the Son always, so to speak, streaming forth from the Father, like light from a lamp or thoughts from a mind. He, the Son, is the self-expression of the Father--the Word the Father has to say. And there never was a time when the Father was not saying it. And since this whole time we have been talking about God, when the Bible speaks of the Word it declares that the Word is with God and the Word was God. And further, in perfect concert with Genesis 1, it declares that all things are created through this eternal divine Word (John 1:1-3). Note: we are not referring to the historical Jesus at all, but to the pre-incarnate Son who in time (meaning entering into time and nature) becomes flesh and dwells among humanity. This Son comes from the Father and is himself God (John 1:14 & 18)."
--Grace Seeker

*****************************************

Remember the analogies...

1)
God the Father: Speaker
God The Father's Self-Expressive Word: Spoken Word
God The Father's Spirit: Speaker's Breath/Voice

2)
God the Father: Subject (Conversation Intiator)
God the Father's Self-Image: Self (Conversation Receiver/Responder)
God The Father's Spirit: Subject/Self Relationship (Conversation Witness/Empowerer)

...

"... these analogies go exactly with HOW the trinitarian "movement" is understood in Christianity, I'd say. That is, God the Father is the "source/origin" of the one triune activity, and is NEVER WITHOUT his Self-Expressive Word and Self-Empowering Spirit in that activity. God, His Word, and His Spirit are all necessary aspects of the ONE uncreated, eternal activity of Divine Self-Knowledge and Self-Expression. And that's the thing: to KNOW God is to LOVE God. So his Eternal Self-Knowledge IS Eternal Loving Self-Communion."

 

[Ramadhan]

YO, I have questions:

1. gmcbroom said that Jesus has always been looking like when he was crucified, even in the beginning and at the end. Do you agree with this? and if not why? is there scriptural evidence to support your view?

2. You said Jesus (p) is not The One God, but he is very God.

What is the difference between "the one god" and "very god"?

3. Can you confirm also that christians believe in a god who is not all knowing?

Sol invictus, you can also help out YO here if you so wish. But if you are still busy learning biblical evidence that support blood atonement and human sacrifices, I understand.

 

[Sol Invictus]

an eternal does not make God.
Isn't this obvious?

where did i say that an eternal makes a god? all i said was that muslims believe in multiple eternals and that god is not the only being who is eternal. if you disagree with the above, can you quote for us the post in which i said something completely different?

Yes, I maybe having trouble with english as it is my fourth language.

it's certainly nice of you to at least admit that you have trouble understanding the question. now if you could lose the attitude (especially when you are in error) then we would have no problem.

 

[Sol Invictus]

Sol invictus, you can also help out YO here if you so wish. But if you are still busy learning biblical evidence that support blood atonement and human sacrifices, I understand.

your obsession with me is indeed fascinating naidamar.

 

[Ramadhan]

your obsession with me is indeed fascinating naidamar.

I am just trying to figure out if you actually believe in christianity, because in all your discussions here, you have been very vague about your belief. You do have ways with words, but there is no substance, and you know that, because you keep trying to divert and refocus on trivial matters which take away spotlight from what YOU actually believe in. You even have no problem with the beliefs of other christians such as YO who believe that Jesus is not the God of the OT, and you even went on to say that you have the same belief as YO although in just previous post you said Jesus was the God of the OT. It just seems that you are very much willing to mask whatever your belief is just to win an argument, which is not a sign of honesty, but I guess that is to be expected from followers of Saul of tarsus.

So don't worry, I will keep asking you questions so I can know what your actual belief is, you don't mind, do you?

Now, can you answer my questions on my post #76?

 

[Amigo]

I didn't follow the whole discussion, but one thing I note is that Christians here perhaps should not be considered as they believe the same thing. You know, they could be coming from different denominations with quite different understanding of Christianity. So I think best may be individual just speak from himself or herself.

About the analogies, I think they can be misleading and frankly they are not needed. I think every human can understand fatherhood better than angles and triangles. And the point of God becoming man was to show us how close God is to us that we don't need analogies to understand God. He is closer to us than we are to ourselves...

For the understanding of the Trinity, I just like to ask people whether father can be without son and vice versa. If not, why any problem seing that they are one. It is because we are not calm in our minds and hearts to look clearly.