There is an alternative to trinitarianism/ non-trinitarianism.

[Free]

Stop accusing me

Accusing you of what, polytheism? Do you prefer tritheism? That is precisely what you believe. You believe in three completely separate, coequal, divine beings, which is the definition of tritheism.

and admit the truth. I believe Jesus is as divine person while you don’t he’s a divine person. You yourself said.

Do not misrepresent others' positions. I have never said that nor would I. I told you that Jesus, the Son, is a divine person HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE, for instance.

 

[Free]

Catholic Encyclopedia:

“the human nature of Christ, though not a human person, loses nothing of the perfection of the perfect man; for the Divine Person supplies the place of the human.”

Is Jesus a human person

From the same article:

"I’m not saying there’s no sense in which we can say that Jesus is a “human person.” Language is polyvalent, and if we define “human person” as “person with a human nature,” then in that sense it would be correct to call Jesus a “human person.” I’m just saying that’s not the traditional language of the Church."

"Once you realize that Christ has everything that pertains to human nature — a human mind and soul, a human will — it can become difficult to conceive what exactly is left of “personhood” to be one in Jesus."

They still believe that Jesus is truly human, so it sounds like they want to split hairs for the sake of splitting hairs over the definition of "person."

 

[Dmytro]

Accusing you of what, polytheism? Do you prefer tritheism? That is precisely what you believe. You believe in three completely separate, coequal, divine beings, which is the definition of tritheism.


Do not misrepresent others' positions. I have never said that nor would I. I told you that Jesus, the Son, is a divine person HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE, for instance.

Human person is always being. You don’t believe Jesus is a being like we are. So you don’t believe he’s a human person like we are. What’s the problem with you. That’s the truth or show what is lie here.

 

[Free]

Human person is always being. You don’t believe Jesus is a being like we are. So you don’t believe he’s a human person like we are. What’s the problem with you. That’s the truth or show what is lie here.

Moving the goalposts, I see. Jesus is fully and truly human, just as he is fully and truly God. I have always stated that.

 

[Dmytro]

Accusing you of what, polytheism? Do you prefer tritheism? That is precisely what you believe. You believe in three completely separate, coequal, divine beings, which is the definition of tritheism.

So you just now yourself confirmed that I really believe in Jesus as a divine person and you don’t because you don’t believe what I believe.

Do not misrepresent others' positions. I have never said that nor would I. I told you that Jesus, the Son, is a divine person HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE, for instance.

 

[LeviR]

From the same article:

"I’m not saying there’s no sense in which we can say that Jesus is a “human person.” Language is polyvalent, and if we define “human person” as “person with a human nature,” then in that sense it would be correct to call Jesus a “human person.” I’m just saying that’s not the traditional language of the Church."

"Once you realize that Christ has everything that pertains to human nature — a human mind and soul, a human will — it can become difficult to conceive what exactly is left of “personhood” to be one in Jesus."

They still believe that Jesus is truly human, so it sounds like they want to split hairs for the sake of splitting hairs over the definition of "person."

The Catholic’s teach that the two natures are joined but not mixed.
IOW, the divine nature remains devine with all its attributes and the human nature with all of its. They are not blended together, but joined.
If the human nature was itself a person, then there would be one person joining himself in one body with other person. Creating two persons in one.

 

[Free]

So you just now yourself confirmed that I really believe in Jesus as a divine person and you don’t because you don’t believe what I believe.

For clarity, the eternal Son is a divine person; Jesus is the Son who became flesh and is both truly man and truly God. That's what Scripture teaches.

 

[Dmytro]

Moving the goalposts, I see. Jesus is fully and truly human, just as he is fully and truly God. I have always stated that.

No, I’m just fixing grammatical errors to make the meaning clear. Truly human and not a separate being… That’s trinitarianism in all it’s ambiguity and irrationality.

 

[Dmytro]

For clarity, the eternal Son is a divine person; Jesus is the Son who became flesh and is both truly man and truly God. That's what Scripture teaches.

human person is a being separate from other humans. Do you believe Jesus while he was in a flash was a separate being?

 

[Dmytro]

The Catholic’s teach that the two natures are joined but not mixed.
IOW, the divine nature remains devine with all its attributes and the human nature with all of its. They are not blended together, but joined.
If the human nature was itself a person, then there would be one person joining himself in one body with other person. Creating two persons in one.

He was a divine person became flesh and dwelling among us. A person like we are.

 

[Free]

human person is a being separate from other humans. Do you believe Jesus while he was in a flash was a separate being?

No. Jesus's divine nature is what it is and never changes. So, it could never be said that he is a separate being from the Father (and the Holy Spirit); he is one in Being with the Father. There is one God and he is a tri-personal being.

 

[Free]

The Catholic’s teach that the two natures are joined but not mixed.
IOW, the divine nature remains devine with all its attributes and the human nature with all of its. They are not blended together, but joined.
If the human nature was itself a person, then there would be one person joining himself in one body with other person. Creating two persons in one.

That makes sense, although his human nature still had its own will.

 

[Consecrated Life]

The that fact that none of the three had a beginning, & that there can only be one God leaves only one feasible conclusion for me.

 

[Dmytro]

The that fact that none of the three had a beginning

fact. Worthy to mention that you’ve just broken Athanasian creed stating ‘yet there are not three eternal beings but one’ and hence, according to it, you cannot be saved. Glory to God he doesn’t judge according to human seemingly biblical writings.

& that there can only be one God

fact. Yahweh God the Father is that only true God

leaves only one feasible conclusion for me.

That’s very sad, really. Read the gospels carefully and you’ll clearly see three divine beings: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit and no one other divine. Pay attention to the OT passages where Yahweh addresses Jesus with word US or ‘says Yahweh to my Adonai’ of ‘you are my Son today I’ve begotten you’ and you’ll perhaps believe that there is only one true God but three divine beings: Yahweh God the Father, Jesus Adonai the Son and the Holy Spirit. Believe in the Father and in the Son please, this and not Athanasian, or any other, creed is necessary to enter life.

 

[Dmytro]

No. Jesus's divine nature is what it is and never changes. So, it could never be said that he is a separate being from the Father (and the Holy Spirit); he is one in Being with the Father. There is one God and he is a tri-personal being.

Could you please quote some verse from the gospels depicting that tri-personal being speaking or acting in some other way.

 

[LeviR]

That makes sense, although his human nature still had its own will.

The idea that God uniting Himself with human nature could actually cause a struggle or challenge for Him is unreasonable.

 

[Free]

Could you please quote some verse from the gospels depicting that tri-personal being speaking or acting in some other way.

Mat 3:16 And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him;
Mat 3:17 and behold, a voice from heaven said, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.” (ESV)
Jhn 14:15 “If you love me, you will keep my commandments.
Jhn 14:16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever,
Jhn 14:17 even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you.
Jhn 14:18 “I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.
Jhn 14:19 Yet a little while and the world will see me no more, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live.
Jhn 14:20 In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you. (ESV)

 

[Free]

The idea that God uniting Himself with human nature could actually cause a struggle or challenge for Him is unreasonable.

How, exactly, is that unreasonable? If God came in human flesh as the atoning sacrifice for the salvation of humans and become an advocate and mediator between God and man, meaning he had to truly live the human experience but be without blemish, how should we expect him to be?

You cannot just say it would be unreasonable but not provide a legitimate alternative as to how we should expect God in human flesh to actually behave when living a true human existence.

 

[LeviR]

How, exactly, is that unreasonable? If God came in human flesh as the atoning sacrifice for the salvation of humans and become an advocate and mediator between God and man, meaning he had to truly live the human experience but be without blemish, how should we expect him to be?

You cannot just say it would be unreasonable but not provide a legitimate alternative as to how we should expect God in human flesh to actually behave when living a true human existence.

It would be like Andre the Giant in a wresting match with pee wee Herman.

 

[Free]

It would be like Andre the Giant in a wresting match with pee wee Herman.

On what basis can you make that claim though? It seems like you’re not really thinking through what I provided nor what the gospels tell us about Jesus, but just sticking to at least one unsupported assumption.