ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Forum Jump
Posts: 330
Wed, 21-Nov-07 14:43:28
Posts: 547
Wed, 21-Nov-07 14:58:25
Wed, 21-Nov-07 16:33:33
Wed, 21-Nov-07 17:01:30
Posts: 0
Wed, 21-Nov-07 17:11:33
Quote:Medini:What I mean is that these acts of speaking or breathing can either be entirely free to G-d (unlike man where breathing, for example, is involuntary) or they can be inherent. If entirely free, then they are acts that exist from non-existence, whether eternally or in time, and they cannot be G-d unless you have a G-d who exists from non-existence, an existential limitation hardly applicable to the Truly Infinite. But if inherent, if not entirely voluntary, then they are acts that G-d MUST do from His very nature, an essential limitation also hardly applicable to the Truly Infinite. Thus, either neither of these acts are G-d in any sense, thereby negating the Trinity, or your G-d is existentially or essentially limited to the degree that your G-d cannot be Truly Infinite, and in that dependence simply cannot be legitimately said to be G-d at all.
Posts: 1234
Wed, 21-Nov-07 17:42:25
Wed, 21-Nov-07 17:51:38
Wed, 21-Nov-07 17:58:14
Posts: 3049
Wed, 21-Nov-07 18:11:27
Moderator
Wed, 21-Nov-07 18:16:56
Wed, 21-Nov-07 19:11:34
Quote:SMRootsProblem is..... G-d is not a "being" at all. He is infinite.
Quote:ChaimAlso, 3 distinct persons in a Trinity, if distinct, are by definition FINITE.
Quote:Medini:Light is a created subtance and is finite, NOT Absolutely Infinite. Nor is it an activity like speaking or breathing - that is the "from", "came from" here. So, your poem has just presented us with a fallacy of false analogy. What is more, the issue is inherent versus voluntative activity in the "from", "came from" here. Which is it? Either the activity is NOT G-d or your "G-d" is not G-d - those are your ONLY logical choices.
Wed, 21-Nov-07 19:15:23
Posts: 356
Thu, 22-Nov-07 09:14:02
Thu, 22-Nov-07 09:29:26
Posts: 92
Thu, 22-Nov-07 10:47:14
Thu, 22-Nov-07 15:31:26
Quote:pensteel: God being beyond our comprehension actually does tell us something very important. If there is something that we can comprehend (by comprehend I mean that we can understand what it is for it to be) then that understandable thing is not God. Therefore, Jesus (being a man) is not God.
Quote:pensteel: Light that produces light is still light, however, the second light has a source for its being--the first light. Anything that relies on something else for its being is dependent on the source of its being, but the thing which is the source of another's being is not dependent on that which it produces. Therefore, the second light is dependent upon the first light. Jesus (if he is the light) is dependent but not equal to that from which he has his source of being. God, however, is independent, He is dependent on nothing and no one. Therefore, because God is independent but Jesus is dependent it is clear that Jesus is not God, for a thing cannot possess both independent and dependent being. A thing either owes its being to nothing or something. A being which owes its existence to something cannot be God as God's existence is dependent on nothing and no one.
Quote:pensteel: If infinity generates infinity where would the new infinity exist at? Also, how do you add onto infinity or take away from it? Anything with limitation in any way is finite. Since Jesus has a beginning, Jesus is finite.
Quote:pensteel: Even if you say that the "word" was born before all times...this does not remove it as a created and limited thing. It's source of being is still God and not itself. Therefore it is dependent on God. Because it is dependent on another for its being it cannot be identified as God, fore God's being is dependent on nothing and no one. I'm confused about your point concerning the word being divine as angels are divine--so what? No one would argue (I would think) that angels are infinite or are equal in any way to God. Even if God's "word" always was, this does not make it God. God's "word" is generated from God and therefore dependent on God.
Quote:ChaimAnd what's simple fact is that neither Josephus or Tacitus mention that Jews ever once believed that 1 = 3 or any other Trinitarian nonsense. As you'd see in this thread, both historians attest to Jewish uniform belief that God is one, period.
Quote:ChaimYour biblical interpretations are proven false according to what all Jews believed in Jesus' day about God's unity. Unless you're of the opinion that God revealed Himself differently when Jesus came, and therefore expected Jews to follow a god their fathers never knew.
Fri, 23-Nov-07 01:28:00
Fri, 23-Nov-07 12:43:41
Fri, 23-Nov-07 15:51:01
Quote:ChaimJosephus and Tacitus, who were quoted earlier in this thread, show Jewish unanimity on God as they knew Him then, which is the same as today despite many different Jewish denominations. Jews today are unanimous in our belief that God is One absolute Unity. Your best response is to claim that this very God who was "so intimately well known" already by Jews of that day ensured well before Jesus that Jews would never go for a Trinity by commanding us in no uncertain terms never to worship gods our fathers didn't know or worship. Jews then and now do not believe a Trinity is a god our fathers ever knew and this is how we faithfully keep that commandment. Do you believe God intentionally made it impossible for the faithful Jew to accept a Trinity? If not, how do you reconcile this better, or more full, understanding of God with the simple fact that worship of a Trinity is not anything like worship of an absolute unified God? You'd have to admit that worshipping One vs. 3-in-1 is quite different. How can you expect Jews who are commanded clearly not to worship gods their fathers never knew to start worshipping something entirely different? Would you consider worshipping God as Mormons do? Maybe more was fully revealed to the Mormons. If not, why not? And if not, how can you blame Jews?
Posts: 20720
Fri, 23-Nov-07 16:00:50
Share This