The doctrine of the Trinity

False wisdom because he is wrong, as I have illustrated in my response to his post.

Why not try to accept the obvious to anyone who is not an educated idiot. It is obvious this is a Tri-une universe on scores of levels reveal the tri-une Creator quite satisfactorly and which can be "clearly seen" unless your nose is stuck in a tree trunk so you can't see the forest.

Let me say this again because you fellas seem to be purely blind to this point. I nor anyone that I know of, claims that created stuff provides any PERFECT model EQUAL to the Triune nature of God. However, that is apparently how you fella's are approaching this debate. The argument is that CREATION provides SUFFICIENTLY CLEAR triune models that reflect its Trinune Creator. That is all. No one but an educated idiot can fail to see that clearly, and the only reason the educated idiot cannot see it, is because they are demanding TECHNICALITIES which demand a PERFECT TRIUNE MODEL, instead of what the common man can clearly see from simple observations. For heaven's sake, what is difficult about a triangle or the multitudes of three but one manifestations throughout this universe?????

Dr. Morris certainly cannot be accused of being a simpleton when it comes to science and he clearly and repeatedly states this is a Tri-Universe that reflects the Triune God in regard to space, matter and time.

 

Lets see, how many times did you reference "educated idiots"?

 

Again you miss the obvious! It is not the complexity of the matter but the apparent simplicity of the matter. Every apparent simplex thing in creation is only simplex in appearance but clearly deeply complex when further explored. Romans 1:20 has no reference to the complex but the apparent simplex or don't you understand the words "clearly seen"?????? No PhD is required. Just pure pride is the driving force behind educated idiots who want to boast of their knowledge by demanding the complex but ignoring the simplex. It is the simplex Paul refers to in Romans 1:20 not the complex.

No complex explanation denies the simplex past, present and future of time. If it does, it is merely dumbplex produced by educated idiots.

 

Sufficiently enough I hope to make the point that you fella's are STRAINING AT GNATS and completely missing the point of Romans 1:20 that does not require a science degree to "CLEARLY SEE" the obvious.

 

You never cease to amaze.

 

What you fella's are broadcasting in the loudest possible language is that unless you have a SCIENCE DEGREE (LIKE US) you cannot understand what Paul says is "CLEARLY SEEN"! That is truly amazing arrogance!

 

Consider:

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

The following is evidence that God is revealed in His Creation. I believe I have posted this before but it does not show that He is revealed as Trinity.

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

The following account is extracted from John Gill’s Body of Divinity [page 5, chapter 1]. Gill takes the passage from Crantz’s History of Greenland.

John Gill notes about the above testimony: “A glaring proof this, that a supreme Being, the first cause of all things, is to be concluded from the works of creation.”

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


But then there are those as described in the following Scripture:

Isaiah 44:9-20, KJV
9 They that make a graven image are all of them vanity; and their delectable things shall not profit; and they are their own witnesses; they see not, nor know; that they may be ashamed.
10 Who hath formed a god, or molten a graven image that is profitable for nothing?
11 Behold, all his fellows shall be ashamed: and the workmen, they are of men: let them all be gathered together, let them stand up; yet they shall fear, and they shall be ashamed together.
12 The smith with the tongs both worketh in the coals, and fashioneth it with hammers, and worketh it with the strength of his arms: yea, he is hungry, and his strength faileth: he drinketh no water, and is faint.
13 The carpenter stretcheth out his rule; he marketh it out with a line; he fitteth it with planes, and he marketh it out with the compass, and maketh it after the figure of a man, according to the beauty of a man; that it may remain in the house.
14 He heweth him down cedars, and taketh the cypress and the oak, which he strengtheneth for himself among the trees of the forest: he planteth an ash, and the rain doth nourish it.
15 Then shall it be for a man to burn: for he will take thereof, and warm himself; yea, he kindleth it, and baketh bread; yea, he maketh a god, and worshippeth it; he maketh it a graven image, and falleth down thereto.
16 He burneth part thereof in the fire; with part thereof he eateth flesh; he roasteth roast, and is satisfied: yea, he warmeth himself, and saith, Aha, I am warm, I have seen the fire:
17 And the residue thereof he maketh a god, even his graven image: he falleth down unto it, and worshippeth it, and prayeth unto it, and saith, Deliver me; for thou art my god.
18 They have not known nor understood: for he hath shut their eyes, that they cannot see; and their hearts, that they cannot understand.
19 And none considereth in his heart, neither is there knowledge nor understanding to say, I have burned part of it in the fire; yea, also I have baked bread upon the coals thereof; I have roasted flesh, and eaten it: and shall I make the residue thereof an abomination? shall I fall down to the stock of a tree?
20 He feedeth on ashes: a deceived heart hath turned him aside, that he cannot deliver his soul, nor say, Is there not a lie in my right hand?

 

And your point is......????? You have offered nothing but uninspired opinions. Tritheism can be found among idoltrous cultures. Dr. Morris cannot be regarded as an uneducated man and he can see the Trinity reflected in creation and so can many other well educated men of science.

 

On a more friendlier note, what did you teach at Virginia Tech and what were your qualifications to teach?

 

I agree! Much as I admire Dr. Henry Morris and his work I believe his analogy is faulty.

 

You may agree but thus far you nor GreekTim has responded to the evidence I placed before you in black and white to disprove that charge. I am waiting......

 

Pretty sure I've said repeatedly that your analogy breaks down b/c it speaks of 3 parts of a whole. Each person of the godhead are not parts but fully and completely God.

 

Gonna get rid of the rest of your horse hockey and just deal w/ the relevant stuff.

I like how you can make an argument w/out defining it. What is time?

And past, present, and future are parts of time. Past is less than time b/c it only refers to that which has already occurred in the space/time continuum. Future is less than time b/c it has yet to occur in time. Not only that... but past, present, and future is simply human perception of time. God who is timeless and eternal has no past, present, and future. God's perception of time is not a line but a dot.

Further... space is not length, width, and depth. Those are measurements and dimensions. Further, they are still only parts of the measurements of the area of space. PARTS.

These fail to analogize the Trinity on so many levels. Not sure what you meant about "educational idiots", but you got the idiot part right.

 

Good grief. Paul doesn't say God's triune nature is clearly seen. He says his divine nature or his godness is clearly seen. Your name is a misnomer. Not only are you missing what the Bible says, you are offering extra biblical "proof" for your assertions. Congrats... you are a walking contradiction.

 

John 1:1b says "and The Word was WITH God" proving that The Word was not ALL that God is" and yet "The Word is God" - so in reality each Person is a PART of the Trinity rather than each being the whole TRINITY while at the same time each are fully God in regard to the attributes that make God to be God and each are inseparable from the other, so that if one is non-existent the whole is non-existent. Do you deny that each member of the Godhead is exactly that, a "member" or "part" of the Trinity or do you believe Each Person of the Godhead is the WHOLE Trinity??????

The same is true with three dimensional space. Space is a Trinity and yet length is not the whole trinity of space but part, but nevertheless, if one part is non-existent or destroyed the whole is destroyed or non-existent. So each part is in reality INSEPARABLE FROM THE WHOLE as the WHOLE ceases to exist when any of the Triune parts cease to exist. This is demonstrated by simply using a peice of chalk and drawing a quarter inch line four inches long on a chalk board. The chalk line has depth, thin, but depth. It has width and it has length. They are INSEPARABLY one but each is not the whole, just as each member of the Trinity is not the Whole Trinity. Each is one dimension of Space, just as each Person of the Trinity is one dimension of the Trinity. Each is space in regard to the essence of space, just as each member (part by definition) is in essence God. Sure the analogy breaks down at this point, as no finite analogy of God's nature in creation is perfect, but such triune analogies in nature are fully sufficient to convey the triune nature of God to man.

If you take an eraser and attempt to only remove the length of the line what happens? If you take an eraser and only remove the width of the line what happens? If you take an eraser and only remove the depth of the line what happens?

As I have repeated over and over, there is no PERFECT analogy of the Trinity in nature, but you fella's seem to ignore that and thus pick at the imperfections and thus believe you have discredited the analogy if you can find a point where it breaks down. Hence, you nit pick but fail to see the analogy as a whole is entirely sufficient to convey the triune nature of God by finite models in nature. However, I am certain that you will continue to ignore this and continue to strain at gnats and swallow camels.

These trinities pervading the creation may not be perfect reflections of the Creator. But they are good and realistic models of the tri-une God who made them. - Dr. Henry Morris

For example, an egg is often used as a model for the trinity. However, when using it, we always qualify it by saying it is not a perfect model of the Trinity. If we fail to say that then those who follow out that imperfect model will arrive at modualism instead of Trinitarianism. Nevertheless, the egg is a sufficient model from nature to show a three in one analogy. So is the water (vapor, solid, liquid) with qualifications. So is the Sun (energy, heat, light) and countless other IMPERFECT but sufficient models to convey a three-one analogy. However, some models are better than others (triangle, the triune universe, space, mass/engergy, time; etc.). The point is, that God has created the universe in such a way to provide literally scores of models of the Trinune nature of God that can be "CLEARLY SEEN" to the average person.

Furthermore, you claim that Romans 1:20 does not use the term "Trinity" and therefore it cannot mean that. You know fully well the word "Trinity" is not found in scripture but is a term coined to express the truth of the "GODHEAD" which term is found in Romans 1:20. So your argument is moot.

Second, Paul is speaking about what can be "CLEARLY SEEN" and creation is literally full of Trinitarian models that can be easily seen, except by educated idiots who have their nose up against a tree trunk so they are incapable of seeing the forest. That is precisely what you fella's are doing, you are so bent upon demanding PERFECT models, and thus straining at gnats you can't see the obvious because you are demanding A PERFECT ANALOGY rather than a SUFFICIENT analogy for the Godhead to be seen. Your demands are erroneous because finite creation cannot provide an PERFECT model for the "Godhead" as the Godhead is unique and incapable of PERFECT reproduction in the finite.

 

Dr. Morris states precisely what I have stated. Furthermore, Dr. Morris also acknowledges that there is no PERFECT model of the Trinity that can be found in nature but there is SUFFICIENT models that the "Godhead" can be "clearly seen" by those who examine nature.


These trinities pervading the creation may not be perfect reflections of the Creator. But they are good and realistic models of the tri-une God who made them. - Dr. Henry Morris

Paul is not speaking about persons with SCIENCE DEGREES in Romans 1:18-32 but the common ordinary observer of creation. A Triangle is a very simple and clear analogy of a Trinity although not a PERFECT analogy.

 

And matter is not:

But even if it were that says nothing about a Trinity, either in the Godhead or creation!

And "that ole rock" hasn't moved in 47 years!

 

Well, this thread gives a good illustration (or illustrations) of the differences between the Hellenistic metaphysical concepts of God and the Hebrew view.

The gentile wants to debate concerning length, width, breadth and dimensional concepts concerning God where the Hebrew mind wants to know if an egg laid on the Sabbath can be eaten.

HankD

 

I like the illustration of water, being able to be liquid,solid, and gas,, yet still H2O

as well as the example of time being comprised of past,present,future, or how about length width and height making up the physical dimensions of something.

or how about the universe being space,matter,and time?

 

There is one thing I will contribute with a high degree of confidence. Biblicist is correct in the principle of the relationship of matter and energy. Matter, no matter how massive or minute is like the H2O mention, is congealed energy.

Now, I do not think that Paul had that in mind when penning his words to the Romans. Mankind, I am confident did not as of yet understand that relationship, certainly not as robustly as we do today.

I like what OR had to say on the matter.