There are many mysteries about God.

[Carry_Your_Name]

Where did you get the idea that God has to have a "core identity" at all, Carry_Your_Name? His identity is in all of Scripture, not just in two verses. The New Testament reveals more of God, by the way, because of the God-man Jesus, who is all-God (the Word) and all-human at the same time. You aren't a Mormon, are you, because they believe that God the Father has a physical body (as one of your posts seems to imply)?

Not at all, God is spirit, Jn. 4:24, Jesus is his incarnation. I pointed out a logically fallacy, that "God is revealed as the Word, and the Word is God" is circular reasoning. If you wanna know who he originally is, go back to the OT, especially those two verses which explicitly state who he is.

As for whether God the Father has a "body", please specify what body. According to Paul, there're celestial/heavenly bodies and terrestial/earthly bodies. If God is seated on this throne in HEAVEN, it is reasonable to assume that he must have a celestial body for heaven.

There are also celestial bodies and terrestrial bodies; but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. (1 Cor. 15:40)

 

[Bruce.Leiter]

Not at all, God is spirit, Jn. 4:24, Jesus is his incarnation. I pointed out a logically fallacy, that "God is revealed as the Word, and the Word is God" is circular reasoning. If you wanna know who he originally is, go back to the OT, especially those two verses which explicitly state who he is.

As for whether God the Father has a "body", please specify what body. According to Paul, there're celestial/heavenly bodies and terrestial/earthly bodies. If God is seated on this throne in HEAVEN, it is reasonable to assume that he must have a celestial body for heaven.

There are also celestial bodies and terrestrial bodies; but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. (1 Cor. 15:40)

God is the creator first and foremost, the "why" is beyond your comprehension.

Yes you do, otherwise acknowledge God as the creator first. I don't worship the trinity, triunity or triune nature, I worship God through Jesus, to whom the Holy Spirit points. You're misrepresenting God by naming the trinity as his core identity.

Then it's a part of the mystery beyond your comprehension.

You are right to say that the Trinity is mysterious; human logic can't penetrate his meaning. I think we need to submit our proud human reasoning to that fact, since God doesn't fit our puny logic. I do worship God as Triune, because his mystery as the 3-in-1 God is one way in which he is so great that I can't grasp his amazing greatness. The result is my praise.

 

[Bruce.Leiter]

Not at all, God is spirit, Jn. 4:24, Jesus is his incarnation. I pointed out a logically fallacy, that "God is revealed as the Word, and the Word is God" is circular reasoning. If you wanna know who he originally is, go back to the OT, especially those two verses which explicitly state who he is.

As for whether God the Father has a "body", please specify what body. According to Paul, there're celestial/heavenly bodies and terrestial/earthly bodies. If God is seated on this throne in HEAVEN, it is reasonable to assume that he must have a celestial body for heaven.

There are also celestial bodies and terrestrial bodies; but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. (1 Cor. 15:40)

What do you think Paul is writing about when he talks about celestial and terrestrial bodies, Carry_Your_Name? Since his whole discussion is about the future resurrection of our bodies, he certainly is talking about the sun, moon, and stars, on the one hand, and humans' bodies, on the other. What do you think?

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

You are right to say that the Trinity is mysterious; human logic can't penetrate his meaning. I think we need to submit our proud human reasoning to that fact, since God doesn't fit our puny logic. I do worship God as Triune, because his mystery as the 3-in-1 God is one way in which he is so great that I can't grasp his amazing greatness. The result is my praise.

The closest analogy is the simulation theory, that this reality we're living in is God's simulation, everyone is a character in it, and Jesus is God's character on Earth, while God the Father was monitoring in heaven. That perfectly explains how the Father, Son and Spirit acted simultaneously.

When He had been baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened to Him, and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting upon Him. And suddenly a voice came from heaven, saying, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” (Matt. 3:16-17)

And please understand that this is just an analogy, because unlike a computer simulation, we have free will, Jesus is distinct from God with a free will of his own, and eventually when heaven and earth pass away, we won't pass away, we'll be made "real" in God's "base reality" and living with God in New Jerusalem.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

What do you think Paul is writing about when he talks about celestial and terrestrial bodies, Carry_Your_Name? Since his whole discussion is about the future resurrection of our bodies, he certainly is talking about the sun, moon, and stars, on the one hand, and humans' bodies, on the other. What do you think?

A star is the symbol of an angel or a heavenly host, in Rev. 12, when Satan was defeated and cast down to the earth, a third of his angels fell down with him. From earthly pespective, a third of the stars fell down to the earth.

 

[Bruce.Leiter]

The closest analogy is the simulation theory, that this reality we're living in is God's simulation, everyone is a character in it, and Jesus is God's character on Earth, while God the Father was monitoring in heaven. That perfectly explains how the Father, Son and Spirit acted simultaneously.

When He had been baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened to Him, and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting upon Him. And suddenly a voice came from heaven, saying, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” (Matt. 3:16-17)

And please understand that this is just an analogy, because unlike a computer simulation, we have free will, Jesus is distinct from God with a free will of his own, and eventually when heaven and earth pass away, we won't pass away, we'll be made "real" in God's "base reality" and living with God in New Jerusalem.

Carry_Your_Name, why do you take such theories from outside Scripture to explain or make it have some sense? Why not just accept the plain teaching of the Bible without trying to reason it through? A long time ago, God humbled me by allowing me to have physical pain as Satan's "thorn in the flesh" like Paul's. I let go of my ego's reasoning powers. John Calvin had it right, "Go as far as the Bible goes; then stop."

 

[Bruce.Leiter]

Not at all, God is spirit, Jn. 4:24, Jesus is his incarnation. I pointed out a logically fallacy, that "God is revealed as the Word, and the Word is God" is circular reasoning. If you wanna know who he originally is, go back to the OT, especially those two verses which explicitly state who he is.

As for whether God the Father has a "body", please specify what body. According to Paul, there're celestial/heavenly bodies and terrestial/earthly bodies. If God is seated on this throne in HEAVEN, it is reasonable to assume that he must have a celestial body for heaven.

There are also celestial bodies and terrestrial bodies; but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. (1 Cor. 15:40)

Here is a thought that blows me away: God is the 3-in-1 God as the Creator, the Rescuer, and the Sanctifier. The three Persons of the one God work to together to create you in your mother's womb, bring you to faith in him, and enable you to grow spiritually. Many Bible passages support that statement. The Father originates, the Son is the Agent, and the Spirit is the "Atmosphere" for them to happen.

Gen 1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
Gen 1:2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made.

2Co 13:14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.

Mat 28:18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
Mat 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
Mat 28:20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Carry_Your_Name, why do you take such theories from outside Scripture to explain or make it have some sense? Why not just accept the plain teaching of the Bible without trying to reason it through? A long time ago, God humbled me by allowing me to have physical pain as Satan's "thorn in the flesh" like Paul's. I let go of my ego's reasoning powers. John Calvin had it right, "Go as far as the Bible goes; then stop."

Nowhere in the bible says faith and intellect are incompatible. Jesus taught through a lot of relatable parables to the crowd, is the kingdom of heaven literally a wheat field or a drag net? Actually, if you don't reason it through, if you only process the Scripture without studying and experiencing it, you'll end up like the shallow soil, you'll be smothered by the trials and tribulations. And if you do go as the bible goes, it is written in the bible that Babylon the Great is a mystery, God is not a mystery, he manifested through Jesus, who revealed his true self and the fate of humanity to apostle John.

 

[Elijah7777]

In eastern orthodox, God the Father has always been mysterious, and that's because He as the creator of the universe is OUTSIDE the universe he created, he's beyond time and space.

The creation of a finite universe by an infinite God is explained through the Hebrew concept of Tzimtzum.

Tzimtzum (meaning "contraction" or "withdrawal") is the idea that God, who is Ein Sof (without end), concealed part of His infinite presence to create space for a finite world to exist. This does not mean that God is absent from creation, but rather that His presence is hidden, allowing free will and independent existence.

Some interpretations suggest that Tzimtzum is not literal, meaning God is still fully present but perceived as withdrawn. Others see it as a real limitation, where God voluntarily restricts His infinite light to allow for a world that is not overwhelmed by His presence.

 

[Bruce.Leiter]

Nowhere in the bible says faith and intellect are incompatible. Jesus taught through a lot of relatable parables to the crowd, is the kingdom of heaven literally a wheat field or a drag net? Actually, if you don't reason it through, if you only process the Scripture without studying and experiencing it, you'll end up like the shallow soil, you'll be smothered by the trials and tribulations. And if you do go as the bible goes, it is written in the bible that Babylon the Great is a mystery, God is not a mystery, he manifested through Jesus, who revealed his true self and the fate of humanity to apostle John.

However, Carry_Your_Name, if our intellect takes thoughts from outside of the Bible and imposes them on Scripture to read into a passage a meaning that is not in the Bible in order to satisfy our pride that tries to figure everything out, it is our self-centered pride, not the Spirit, that is at work.

The fact that the Gospel of John presents God as three Persons in one God is a mystery to our human reasoning, isn't that so?

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

However, Carry_Your_Name, if our intellect takes thoughts from outside of the Bible and imposes them on Scripture to read into a passage a meaning that is not in the Bible in order to satisfy our pride that tries to figure everything out, it is our self-centered pride, not the Spirit, that is at work.

The fact that the Gospel of John presents God as three Persons in one God is a mystery to our human reasoning, isn't that so?

The bible is sufficient but NOT exhaustive, says the bible itself (Jn. 21:25). The bible is not a closed system, it contains numerous extrabiblical references. Also, language drastically evolves over time, no translation is perfect, including KJV. What's really prideful is to assume that you can figure everything out by diving in a modern translation of 66 ancient books.

I've pointed out that defining God by his triune nature without anything else is circular reasoning - "God is three persons, all three are God". It won't be a mystery if you just go read who the Father, the Son and the Spirit are in the Apostle's Creed instead of worshiping the trinity doctrine as an idol.

 

[Free]

Then answer my question, which came first? It is highly relevant

No, it isn't.

because you won't know what "the Word is God and with God" means without knowing who God originally is before his manifestation.

And you won't know who the God of Gen. 1:1 and Ex. 3:14 truly is if you don't understand that "the Word was with God and the Word was God," is central to who he is.

You're purposely ignoring the fact that "a laborer is worthy of his wages" originated from the Torah.

That isn't relevant. It's quoted from Luke. You're trying to use this one argument to distract from the fact that Peter says Paul's writings are Scripture, equivalent to the OT.

No, that instance in the NT refers to Lev. 19:13 and Deut. 24:15, those are the origin. "Scripture" means written documents, the rest of the NT was still in the writing process.

That not all the books were written isn't relevant.

Is there any historical evidence that the book of Luke was already written, circulated and canonized at the time Paul wrote his letters?

Luke was written before 1 Timothy. Canonization is irrelevant to the matter.

Did Paul preach to the Corinthians that "Christ died for our sins according to my letters?"

How is this relevant?

If you don't trace his identity back to Gen. 1:1 and Ex. 3:14, what you believe is just circular reasoning. Who is God? God is of triune nature, the Father, Son and Spirit in one. Who are the Father, Son and Spirit? The Father is God, the Son is God, the Spirit is God, all three are of godly nature.

No. It seems you don't know what circular reasoning is nor that you've set up a straw man. You're essentially arguing throughout as though the doctrine of the Trinity has no biblical basis whatsoever. But, it is a doctrine based on all that God reveals about himself in the Bible.

Why irrelevant? You claimed you know who God is before his creation with absolute certainty, while you're his creation, you've been living in his creation, and everything you know about him is through his creation, how is that not absurd and irrelevant?

Your argument and question are nonsense. Please just stick to what I'm posting. What is it that you don't seem to understand about the entire Bible being the special revelation of God to man? It's like you think the only two verses in the Bible that are Scripture are Gen. 1:1 and Ex. 3:14.

Alright, how about this - as a matter of fact, who Christians have always believed God to be is laid out in the Apostle's Creed, do you believe that? If so, tell me what the first line says, and is the phrase "three co-equal, co-eternal persons" in there.

The Full Text of the Apostles' Creed - Bibles.net

Read the full text of the Apostles' Creed from the 1988 translation. The Apostles' Creed summarizes what Christians believe.

www.bibles.net

You do understand that there is a lot more early Christian writing than just the Apostle's Creed, yes?

No they aren't, one is about authority, the other about testimony, you're taking them out of context.

Prove it.

Yes it is.

No, the Trinity is not a "mechanism;" that is the heresy of Modalism.

Please explain the part "how he relates to us, and how we should relate to him". Where is "us" your "three co-equal, co-eternal persons" doctrine?

That doesn't have anything to do with the mystery of God and what we're discussion.

Believe it or not, I've repeatedly clarified that I believe in the holy trinity as much as you do,

I know you've repeatedly stated such, but in reality it seems you're a Modalist.

but mine is not that classical triangular loop with the three persons at the three points and God in the center.

Which is a diagram that best illustrates the doctrine of the Trinithy.

Mine is an illustration of two cliffs with a chasm of sin, God the Father on one side, God the Son in the middle, we on the other side, God the Spirit also on the other side pointing us to the Son.

That's called the economic Trinity--the roles each person of the Trinity takes in creation and the salvation of mankind. I've been talking about the ontological Trinity--God as exists in and of himself from all eternity.

If you still insist that your doctrine accurately explains our relationship with Him, despite the fact that "us" is not mentioned at all, well, suit yourself.

Did I ever claim that the doctrine of the Trinity "accurately explains our relationship with Him"? Please show where I have done so.

This is probably what makes debating you next to impossible--you are continually either making assumptions about what someone has stated, or you're purposely gaslighting. Stick to what a person has said and don't assume.

You have ignored everything, including the fallacy of circular reasoning - "God is three in one in nature, all three are God in nature." That's the result when you persistently ignore God's true nature in Gen. 1:1 and Ex. 3:14, when you're the one who has put the cart before the horse the whole time and accuse me of your own doing.

You apparently don't understand the fallacy of circular reasoning, nor that the doctrine of the Trinity takes the entire biblical revelation into account.

I'm a child of God

Which God? The unitarian god of JW's, one of the gods of Mormonism, or the Trinitarian God of Scripture?

If you think the statement "three co-equal, co-eternal persons”, which doesn't exist in any book of the bible or the Apostle's Creed,

Which, again, is completely and utterly irrelevant as to whether or not it is true.

is more than a doctrine and a mechanism that help understand who God is, then you're indeed worshipping and weaponizing the trinity doctrine, despite your denial.

It's a summary statement of some of what God reveals of his very nature in Scripture. That is neither worshiping nor weaponizing. Rather, it tells me who the Son and the Holy Spirit are; they're both truly God in nature. It tells me why the disciples worshiped Jesus and, therefore, why I ought to too. It seems to you that any claim to truth is to worship and weaponize that truth.

 

[Bruce.Leiter]

The bible is sufficient but NOT exhaustive, says the bible itself (Jn. 21:25). The bible is not a closed system, it contains numerous extrabiblical references. Also, language drastically evolves over time, no translation is perfect, including KJV. What's really prideful is to assume that you can figure everything out by diving in a modern translation of 66 ancient books.

I've pointed out that defining God by his triune nature without anything else is circular reasoning - "God is three persons, all three are God". It won't be a mystery if you just go read who the Father, the Son and the Spirit are in the Apostle's Creed instead of worshiping the trinity doctrine as an idol.

Carry_Your_Name, I believe that the Apostle's Creed represents the truth of the Bible well, but it doesn't emphasize the Oneness of God the way the Bible does. Can you really say with a straight face that THREE Persons as ONE God isn't/aren't mysterious? Does your logic say that one plus one plus one equals one? That's the Trinity, who means "tri" (three) and "(u)nity." His ways and thoughts are way beyond ours, as he says in Isaiah 55:7-8,

Isa 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD.
Isa 55:9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

@Carry_Your_Name, I believe that the Apostle's Creed represents the truth of the Bible well, but it doesn't emphasize the Oneness of God the way the Bible does. Can you really say with a straight face that THREE Persons as ONE God isn't/aren't mysterious? Does your logic say that one plus one plus one equals one? That's the Trinity, who means "tri" (three) and "(u)nity." His ways and thoughts are way beyond ours, as he says in Isaiah 55:7-8,

Who is God? God is three persons. Which three persons? Father, Son and Spirit? Right, but who are they? They are all of one God. Maybe you and Free don't see such a glaring fallacy, I do. Whatever flaws my logic has, circular reasoning isn't one of them. I've explained that God is mystertious not because of the trinity, but because he's the creator who's BEYOND time and space, the trinity is an inferface that helps us understand God, it's not an idol to worship.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

No, it isn't.

Yes it is.

And you won't know who the God of Gen. 1:1 and Ex. 3:14 truly is if you don't understand that "the Word was with God and the Word was God," is central to who he is.

You won't know who the God of Jn. 1:1 and Matt. 28:19 if you don't understand that God is the Eternal (Ex. 3:14, Rev. 22:13) Creator (Gen. 1:1, Acts 17:24).

That isn't relevant. It's quoted from Luke. You're trying to use this one argument to distract from the fact that Peter says Paul's writings are Scripture, equivalent to the OT.

You're denying the true origin of that quote. You're also deliberately misterpreting Peter's words. Peter simply compared the Pauline epistles with OT Scriptures in terms of DIFFICULTY.

That not all the books were written isn't relevant.

Please produce any historical evidence of Luke's gospeling already circulating in written form at the time Paul wrote the letter. Or any other NT book, for that matter.

Luke was written before 1 Timothy. Canonization is irrelevant to the matter.

It is relevant. Dismissing it a irrelevant only shows your cowardice. I ask you again, if that quote was truly Scripture, please produce any historical evidence of Luke's gospeling already circulating in written form at the time Paul wrote the letter.

How is this relevant?

It is, if you insist that Paul's letters are Scripture.

No. It seems you don't know what circular reasoning is nor that you've set up a straw man. You're essentially arguing throughout as though the doctrine of the Trinity has no biblical basis whatsoever. But, it is a doctrine based on all that God reveals about himself in the Bible.

Not according to you who persistently slap that "three person" definiton on me while totally disregard his original identity in Gen. 1:1 and Ex. 3:14.

Your argument and question are nonsense. Please just stick to what I'm posting. What is it that you don't seem to understand about the entire Bible being the special revelation of God to man? It's like you think the only two verses in the Bible that are Scripture are Gen. 1:1 and Ex. 3:14.

The "entire" bible has a chronological order and a clear linear progression, it's not a simple collection of 66 ancient books. The bible begins with Gen. 1:1, the first three chapters of Genesis forms the whole narrative, the first five books of Moses sets the foundation, upon which the rest of the OT was built, and the NT was the continuation and fulfilment of the OT. You don't seem to understand that when you read a book SERIES, the understanding of latter books is based on the earlier books, the understanding of the earlier books is based on the first book, the understanding of the first book is based on its prologue. You dismissed all of that as "irrelevant" not because they're really irrelevant, but because of your hubris.

You do understand that there is a lot more early Christian writing than just the Apostle's Creed, yes?

You do understand that the trinity doctrine was rooted in the Apostle's Creed, yes?

Prove it.

Go read those verses in CONTEXT. I won't repeat myself.

No, the Trinity is not a "mechanism;" that is the heresy of Modalism.

Yes it is a mechanism. You're worshiping and weaponizing the trinity doctrine.

That doesn't have anything to do with the mystery of God and what we're discussion.

You brought up OUR relationship with God, you explain it. Don't reply if you have nothing to say.

I know you've repeatedly stated such, but in reality it seems you're a Modalist.

It seems to me that you're an idolator of the trinity doctrine, and you're the one who's put the cart before the horse.

Which is a diagram that best illustrates the doctrine of the Trinithy.

Again, please explain how is it not circular reasoning, and where is the aspect of "us" in it.

That's called the economic Trinity--the roles each person of the Trinity takes in creation and the salvation of mankind. I've been talking about the ontological Trinity--God as exists in and of himself from all eternity.

And I've pointed out its fallacy of circular reasoning. The identities of the three persons must be laid out separately, as they are in the Apostle's Creed. Also, "all eternity" is rooted in Ex. 3:14, not in the doctrine itself.

Did I ever claim that the doctrine of the Trinity "accurately explains our relationship with Him"? Please show where I have done so.

This is probably what makes debating you next to impossible--you are continually either making assumptions about what someone has stated, or you're purposely gaslighting. Stick to what a person has said and don't assume.

How about you go read your own quotations? Here's what you posted in #37, I thereby asked you to explain that part, I assumed nothing, you're the one who's denying and gaslighting.

"The doctrine of the Trinity is one of the central and most profound tenets of Christian theology, shaping the faith's understanding of God, the cosmos, and humanity's relationship with the divine. At its core, the Trinity describes the belief in one God who exists in three distinct persons: the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit. This concept is crucial not only in defining the nature of God but also in explaining how Christians experience and relate to Him."

You apparently don't understand the fallacy of circular reasoning, nor that the doctrine of the Trinity takes the entire biblical revelation into account.

The Apostle's Creed does, the "three persons" trinity doctrine alone doesn't. If the entire biblical revelation is taken into account, please acknowledge God's nature as the Eternal Creator first and foremost, that's the first line in the Apostle's Creed.

Which God? The unitarian god of JW's, one of the gods of Mormonism, or the Trinitarian God of Scripture?

The one and only Eternal Creator, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. "Trinitarian God" is your own idol.

Which, again, is completely and utterly irrelevant as to whether or not it is true.

Then show me where is it VERBATIM. If you can't, then you're lying, I stated the truth.

It's a summary statement of some of what God reveals of his very nature in Scripture. That is neither worshiping nor weaponizing. Rather, it tells me who the Son and the Holy Spirit are; they're both truly God in nature. It tells me why the disciples worshiped Jesus and, therefore, why I ought to too. It seems to you that any claim to truth is to worship and weaponize that truth.

"God is three persons, all three persons are God" is typical circular reasoning, without OT setup it reveals nothing. You don't see it because you worship and weaponize the trinity doctrine, despite your denial.

 

[Bruce.Leiter]

Who is God? God is three persons. Which three persons? Father, Son and Spirit? Right, but who are they? They are all of one God. Maybe you and Free don't see such a glaring fallacy, I do. Whatever flaws my logic has, circular reasoning isn't one of them. I've explained that God is mystertious not because of the trinity, but because he's the creator who's BEYOND time and space, the trinity is an inferface that helps us understand God, it's not an idol to worship.

Carry_Your_Name, please back up your statements with Scripture. If you can't, you will be admitting that your reasoning is outside of the Bible, an inadequate way to approach it. The Trinity is NOT a glaring fallacy or circular reasoning or an idol to worship. His divine nature is far beyond our human natures' reasoning powers. James calls us to "humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will lift you up" (James 4:10) by admitting that God is so great that you can't understand him fully.

 

[Free]

You won't know who the God of Jn. 1:1 and Matt. 28:19 if you don't understand that God is the Eternal (Ex. 3:14, Rev. 22:13) Creator (Gen. 1:1, Acts 17:24).

They aren't mutually exclusive passages; they must be taken together. John 1:1 is very clearly speaking of a time prior to creation. He brings creation into in verse 3. John is providing us with further information as to just who this God is in Gen. 1:1 and Ex. 3:14, namely, that he is more than one person.

You're denying the true origin of that quote.

The "true origin" of that quote is not relevant if the quote is directly from Luke.

1Ti 5:18 For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.” (ESV)

Luk 10:7 And remain in the same house, eating and drinking what they provide, for the laborer deserves his wages. Do not go from house to house. (ESV)

Verbatim. (Also, https://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_timothy/5.htm and https://biblehub.com/interlinear/luke/10.htm.)

You argued:

"The second originated from the Torah as well, Jesus didn't make it up:

Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbour, neither rob him: the wages of him that is hired shall not abide with thee all night until the morning. (Lev. 19:13)
Each day you shall give him his wages, and not let the sun go down on it, for he is poor and has set his heart on it (Deut. 24:15)"

When Paul's quote is verbatim from Luke, that is where he most likely quoted from.

You're also deliberately misterpreting Peter's words. Peter simply compared the Pauline epistles with OT Scriptures in terms of DIFFICULTY.

There is a continual problem with your interpretations of Scripture: ignoring grammar and ignoring the specific wording. Let's look at Peter's wording:

2Pe 3:15 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him,
2Pe 3:16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. (ESV)

If "Peter simply compared the Pauline epistles with OT Scriptures in terms of DIFFICULTY," then he would have only said "the Scriptures." But, you are ignoring the key word "other." That implies that Peter considers Paul's words to be Scripture, on par with "the other Scriptures."

Please produce any historical evidence of Luke's gospeling already circulating in written form at the time Paul wrote the letter. Or any other NT book, for that matter.

Please provide historical proof that Paul wrote first. Neither of us can. We can only appeal to the authorities in this case, and every authority I look at says Luke's gospel was written prior to Paul writing 1 Tim.

It is relevant.

It is not at all relevant. Not in the slightest. Canonization is simply the process of recognizing that which is inspired by God and therefore authoritative for the Church. The books were inspired and authoritative the moment they were penned, not when they were canonized.

Dismissing it a irrelevant only shows your cowardice.

You really need to learn to debate without personal attacks.

It is, if you insist that Paul's letters are Scripture.

If you don't think Paul's letters are Scripture, then you can't be a Christian. You should stick to the OT and convert to Judaism.

Not according to you who persistently slap that "three person" definiton on me while totally disregard his original identity in Gen. 1:1 and Ex. 3:14.

First, I'm ignoring nothing. Second, I have no idea what your point is here. You need to be more clear in your communication.

 

[Free]

The "entire" bible has a chronological order and a clear linear progression, it's not a simple collection of 66 ancient books. The bible begins with Gen. 1:1, the first three chapters of Genesis forms the whole narrative, the first five books of Moses sets the foundation, upon which the rest of the OT was built, and the NT was the continuation and fulfilment of the OT. You don't seem to understand that when you read a book SERIES, the understanding of latter books is based on the earlier books, the understanding of the earlier books is based on the first book, the understanding of the first book is based on its prologue. You dismissed all of that as "irrelevant" not because they're really irrelevant, but because of your hubris.

You do realize that the latter books bring more light and clarification to the earlier books, yes? That is one of the reasons why the OT is often quoted in the NT, bringing further, deeper meaning.

You do understand that the trinity doctrine was rooted in the Apostle's Creed, yes?

No, it's rooted in Scripture.

Go read those verses in CONTEXT.

I did read them in context. John 1:1 and Matt. 28:19 both tell us something about the nature of God.

Yes it is a mechanism. You're worshiping and weaponizing the trinity doctrine.

Christians are Trinitarians, not Modalists. The doctrine of the Trinity is a succinct summation of God's revelation of himself as he exists in and of himself, as found in the Bible. I worship the Trinity, not the doctrine, and I have weaponized nothing. Your cheap rhetoric is wearing thin.

You brought up OUR relationship with God, you explain it. Don't reply if you have nothing to say.

Perhaps you should have actually read the article the quote was from:

"The Trinity is first of all important because God is important. To understand more fully what God is like is a way of honoring God. Further, we should allow the fact that God is triune to deepen our worship. We exist to worship God. And God seeks people to worship him “in spirit and truth” (John 4:24). Therefore, we must always endeavor to deepen our worship of God — in truth as well as in our hearts.

The Trinity has a very significant application to prayer. The general pattern of prayer in the Bible is to pray to the Father through the Son and in the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 2:18). Our fellowship with God should be enhanced by consciously knowing that we are relating to a tri-personal God!

Awareness of the distinct role that each Person of the Trinity has in our salvation can especially serve to give us greater comfort and appreciation for God in our prayers, as well as helping us to be specific in directing our prayers."

Again, please explain how is it not circular reasoning

And I've pointed out its fallacy of circular reasoning.

You merely stated that it was circular reasoning, but you haven't actually shown that it is. Not only does it seem rather that you don't actually understand the fallacy, your argument that it was was based on a straw man, as I pointed out.

The identities of the three persons must be laid out separately, as they are in the Apostle's Creed. Also, "all eternity" is rooted in Ex. 3:14, not in the doctrine itself.

Then you really don't understand the doctrine of the Trinity at all, nor the most popular diagram that shows it.

How about you go read your own quotations? Here's what you posted in #37, I thereby asked you to explain that part, I assumed nothing, you're the one who's denying and gaslighting.

"The doctrine of the Trinity is one of the central and most profound tenets of Christian theology, shaping the faith's understanding of God, the cosmos, and humanity's relationship with the divine. At its core, the Trinity describes the belief in one God who exists in three distinct persons: the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit. This concept is crucial not only in defining the nature of God but also in explaining how Christians experience and relate to Him."

As I posted, I've been talking about the ontological Trinity, not the economic Trinity. That something appeared at the end of a quote that refers to the economic Trinity is only because the first half of that sentence is what I was aiming at--"This concept is crucial not only in defining the nature of God." That God is triune is at the core of his nature.

The Apostle's Creed does, the "three persons" trinity doctrine alone doesn't. If the entire biblical revelation is taken into account, please acknowledge God's nature as the Eternal Creator first and foremost, that's the first line in the Apostle's Creed.

Again, the doctrine of the Trinity best takes into account all that God reveals in the Bible about his nature.

The one and only Eternal Creator, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. "Trinitarian God" is your own idol.

Since you essentially deny the Trinity, again, which God is the God of Gen. 1:1? The unitarian god of JW's, the unitarian god of Islam, one of the gods of Mormonism, or some other? You're running out of choices.

Then show me where is it VERBATIM. If you can't, then you're lying, I stated the truth.

No, I haven't lied at all; you've simply misunderstood what I said.

You stated: "If you think the statement "three co-equal, co-eternal persons”, which doesn't exist in any book of the bible or the Apostle's Creed."

I replied: "Which, again, is completely and utterly irrelevant as to whether or not it is true."

I've never made the claim that the statement "three co-equal, co-eternal persons" exists in the Bible or in the Apostle's Creed. In fact, I always acknowledge that it doesn't. What I am saying is that the fact there is no such statement is completely and utterly irrelevant as to whether or not it is true. It is fallacious to argue otherwise.

"God is three persons, all three persons are God" is typical circular reasoning, without OT setup it reveals nothing. You don't see it because you worship and weaponize the trinity doctrine, despite your denial.

Your straw man isn't helping things. I've never denied anything in the OT nor have I ever stated that the doctrine of the Trinity is based only on the NT. I've repeatedly stated, in numerous threads, that the doctrine of the Trinity best takes into account all that God reveals about his nature in Scripture. It is simply your assumption that I'm ignoring the OT.

 

[Free]

Who is God? God is three persons. Which three persons? Father, Son and Spirit? Right, but who are they? They are all of one God. Maybe you and Free don't see such a glaring fallacy, I do. Whatever flaws my logic has, circular reasoning isn't one of them.

Producing straw man arguments is not helpful to the discussion. The doctrine of the Trinity is based on three core arguments, each of which is fully biblical:

1. There is only one God.
2. The Father is truly God, the Son is truly God, the Holy Spirit is truly God.
3. The Father is not the Son nor the Holy Spirit, nor is the Son the Holy Spirit.

Or, another way of putting it:

1. There is only one God.
2. There are three divine persons.
3. The three divine persons are coequal and co-eternal.

Nothing at all circular.

I've explained that God is mystertious not because of the trinity, but because he's the creator who's BEYOND time and space, the trinity is an inferface that helps us understand God, it's not an idol to worship.

And, how did he exist prior to creation? As triune.

 

[Bruce.Leiter]

It's based on human doctrine, not Scripture. You're putting God in the box of trinitarian theology. Mine on the other hand is based on Gen. 1:1 and Ex. 3:14, anything else, including his triune nature, derives from there.

You do realize I've never said "eternal creation", don't you? How can creator NOT be at the core of his identity when He created time and space out of nothing, ex nihilo? I cling to his identity revealed by himself in Gen. 1:1 and Ex. 3:14 instead of speculating with my own intellect. If there's a pre-existing nature of His being, that's the mystery OP talks about, it's not for you or I to speculate.

No surprise, typical tactics, accusing your opponent of your own guilt.

Again, you're not in a place to speculate God's motive of creating the universe. You were not there, and you are not self-existent. The Trinity is a mechanism to know his identity, in and of itself it's NOT his core identity. Enlighten me on one thing, was Gen. 1:1 written first or Jn. 1:1? If you admit it's Gen. 1:1, then his core identity is the eternal creator. I cling to apostle Paul's teaching when he preached God to the Areopagus, wherein God's identity, according to Paul, is the eternal Creator.

God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. (Acts. 17:24)

Carry_Your_Name, how much do you base God's identity on Jesus' and John's words in the Gospel of John? Here they are:

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Jhn_6:37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.
Jhn_6:40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.

Jhn_8:42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me.

Jhn_10:30 I and the Father are one.”

Jhn_14:26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.

I read a liberal commentator who didn't believe in God's inspiration of the Gospel of John say that John believed in the Trinity. Why don't you accept Jesus' and John's words in his gospel?