Are you looking for a reason to believe?

[LeviR]

A theology yes. A paradox no.
paradox
noun [ C or U ]

UK

/ˈpær.ə.dɒks/ US

/ˈper.ə.dɑːks/

Add to word list
C2
a situation or statement that seems impossible or is difficult to understand because it contains two opposite facts or characteristics:


That God is One and also Father, Son and Holy Spirit is a paradox, not a contradiction.

Why do the inventors of the Trinity call it an impenetrable paradox? I already know why. But I’m asking you.

 

[Binyawmene]

I’ve heard it all. I know what RCC teaches. I’ve studied their doctrines.

It's obvious in this thread you've never studied the Trinity.

 

[Carbon]

I’ve heard it all. I know what RCC teaches. I’ve studied their doctrines.

What I discovered is that their doctrines are man made. They are not what scripture teaches. Even the wording they use for their doctrines are not found anywhere in scripture.

Okay, believe as you like.
I disagree with lots of Romanism, but the Trinity is one thing they have right.

 

[LeviR]

I'm assuming you want a discussion about the Trinity instead.

Defined a paradox. Set up a logical paradox about the Trinity and then demonstrate a contradiction.



This is gibberish talk. This tells me that you know nothing about the Trinity.



Already been explained.



It appears you don't know what a paradox is. And you don't know the framework of the Trinity.

It seems your focus is in explaining the hypostatic union rather than looking at the big picture.
The big picture says “it’s an impenetrable paradox”

Paradox:

a seemingly absurd or self-contradictory statement or proposition that when investigated or explained may prove to be well founded or true.

a statement or proposition that, despite sound (or apparently sound) reasoning from acceptable premises, leads to a conclusion that seems senseless, logically unacceptable, or self-contradictory.

While the Trinity doctrine sounds like a paradox, if it could be shown to be true, it would not be a contradiction.
The problem is that you can’t point to any scripture which teaches the Trinity.
In fact, the scripture tells us the opposite. That the one God is the Father alone.

 

[LeviR]

It's obvious in this thread you've never studied the Trinity.

The hypostatic union doesn’t correct the paradox, it establishes it.

 

[Binyawmene]

It seems your focus is in explaining the hypostatic union rather than looking at the big picture.
The big picture says “it’s an impenetrable paradox”

I did a "Bing" search and got 0 results for "Impenetrable Paradox."

Maybe you like to demonstrate this paradox for the Readers in this thread.

Paradox:

a seemingly absurd or self-contradictory statement or proposition that when investigated or explained may prove to be well founded or true.

a statement or proposition that, despite sound (or apparently sound) reasoning from acceptable premises, leads to a conclusion that seems senseless, logically unacceptable, or self-contradictory.

Great, now set up a logical paradox about the Trinity and then demonstrate a contradiction.

While the Trinity doctrine sounds like a paradox, if it could be shown to be true, it would not be a contradiction.
The problem is that you can’t point to any scripture which teaches the Trinity.
In fact, the scripture tells us the opposite. That the one God is the Father alone.

A paradox is a proposition which on the face of it seem self-contradictory, absurd, or at variance contain some common sense, though, on investigation or when explained, it may prove to be well founded or essentially false. When speaking in context of God, a paradox usually accompanied with contradictory absurd assumptions like the Omnipotence Paradox. Every paradox appears to imply that something false is true, which is impossible, at least on a traditional understanding of logic. As if nothing impossible can occur, but paradoxes appear to be cases where something impossible is occurring. In that sense, paradoxes are intellectual and theoretical problems. To solve a paradox is to solve the problem, for example by pointing out which of the paradox’s premises are not true, or by explaining why its conclusion does not follow from its premises.

 

[Arial]

Why do the inventors of the Trinity call it an impenetrable paradox? I already know why. But I’m asking you.

First of all the Trinity wasn't invented by anyone. It is manifest within the Scriptures. To say it in an impenetrable paradox is to say that we cannot be fully grasp or comprehend it with our finite minds, as God is infinite. And the reason it cannot be is because God is a unique being, meaning there is none like him. There is no other triune being. No other self existent being. No other eternal being. And Jesus is unique in that he is the only deity who also took on the nature of a creature and for a specific purpose, and this too is only a property of God.

As such, it is far outside anything our own being experiences. We know things and comprehend things by experiencing them. We explain and define things in terms of our experience. We can say rattlesnake tastes like chicken if we have eaten both, but not if we have only eaten one of those things. We can say something smells like a rose, only because we have smelled a rose. We can say God is triune because he shows himself being and doing what only God can do as Father, as Son, as Holy Spirit. The Bible tells us who is doing what.

A contradiction would be to say that a creature had the capacity to pay the just debt of sin for billions, and then be elevated to sit on God's throne, acting as God in judgement and authority; since the Bible says he will share his glory with no one; that no man can die for the sins of another; that Jesus will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

 

[Binyawmene]

The hypostatic union doesn’t correct the paradox, it establishes it.

This is what makes me think you are simply trolling. You are not demonstrating the paradox but simply making self-declarations. Instead of making bare assertions, demonstrate it and make your statements is true and valid. That is how we have discussions.

 

[Carbon]

This is what makes me think you are simply trolling. You are not demonstrating the paradox but simply making self-declarations. Instead of making bare assertions, demonstrate it and your statement is true. That is how we have discussions.

Exactly

 

[LeviR]

Hypostatic union (from the Greek: ὑπόστασις hypóstasis, 'person, subsistence'

The hypostatic union is based off of Heb 1:3 where it is uncertain of the exact meaning of the word used. Some translate as “nature” or “substance” or “essence” or “person”.

When the word is used elsewhere it is translated as “confidence “ or “substance”.
However, “substance” seems inaccurate. “Assurance” is much closer to the real meaning.

When studying the word and its roots from scripture, the word refers to an inward conviction and firm underlying standing. Having a certain standing under, with assured confidence.

It actually has nothing to do with “nature”.

If someone is said to stand firm with conviction, it has nothing to do with his nature but rather the assurance and confidence on which he stands.

 

[LeviR]

This is what makes me think you are simply trolling. You are not demonstrating the paradox but simply making self-declarations. Instead of making bare assertions, demonstrate it and make your statements is true and valid. That is how we have discussions.

I’ve already explained to you why the RCC calls the doctrine an impenetrable paradox. You’re not listening.

 

[LeviR]

First of all the Trinity wasn't invented by anyone. It is manifest within the Scriptures. To say it in an impenetrable paradox is to say that we cannot be fully grasp or comprehend it with our finite minds, as God is infinite. And the reason it cannot be is because God is a unique being, meaning there is none like him. There is no other triune being. No other self existent being. No other eternal being. And Jesus is unique in that he is the only deity who also took on the nature of a creature and for a specific purpose, and this too is only a property of God.

As such, it is far outside anything our own being experiences. We know things and comprehend things by experiencing them. We explain and define things in terms of our experience. We can say rattlesnake tastes like chicken if we have eaten both, but not if we have only eaten one of those things. We can say something smells like a rose, only because we have smelled a rose. We can say God is triune because he shows himself being and doing what only God can do as Father, as Son, as Holy Spirit. The Bible tells us who is doing what.

A contradiction would be to say that a creature had the capacity to pay the just debt of sin for billions, and then be elevated to sit on God's throne, acting as God in judgement and authority; since the Bible says he will share his glory with no one; that no man can die for the sins of another; that Jesus will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

the Jews understand that the Father is alone the one true God. That’s not far outside of their understanding. Nor would it be because they are to be certain of it. Firmly convinced, without confusion.

 

[Binyawmene]

Hypostatic union (from the Greek: ὑπόστασις hypóstasis, 'person, subsistence'

That's a start. You took the time to define the word "hypostasis."

Subsistence is Latin or substo, sub means "under" and sto means "to stand," while the same word has the same meaning in the Greek is a hypostasis, from huper which means "under" and histayme which means "to stand". In other words, both subsistence and hypostasis would be the underpinning, underlying, or foundation. And this gives the notion of "that which subsists in and by another or subsistence". Its the reality that lies underneath a substance that gives its existence. Therefore, a subsistence "is the real underlying reality (or essential intrinsic inherent fundamental basis) of factual existence".​

But defining a word doesn't demonstrate a paradox.

I’ve already explained to you why the RCC calls the doctrine an impenetrable paradox. You’re not listening.

Great, now set up a logical paradox about the Trinity and then demonstrate a contradiction.

Making self-declarations that Jesus is a Trinity is not a paradox. It's a fallacy of equivocation.

But you would have known that if you knew what the Hypostatic Union teaches.

Are you sincere enough to learn the doctrine?

 

[Arial]

the Jews understand that the Father is alone the one true God. That’s not far outside of their understanding. Nor would it be because they are to be certain of it. Firmly convinced, without confusion.

You don't know what they understood. It is evident that the Prophets knew who the Messiah was. Isiah called him Mighty God. David wrote of him as his Lord. David asked God to not remove the Holy Spirit from him. I believe there is only one God. That God is One. I also believe he is triune.

 

[LeviR]

That's a start. You took the time to define the word "hypostasis."

Subsistence is Latin or substo, sub means "under" and sto means "to stand," while the same word has the same meaning in the Greek is a hypostasis, from huper which means "under" and histayme which means "to stand". In other words, both subsistence and hypostasis would be the underpinning, underlying, or foundation. And this gives the notion of "that which subsists in and by another or subsistence". Its the reality that lies underneath a substance that gives its existence. Therefore, a subsistence "is the real underlying reality (or essential intrinsic inherent fundamental basis) of factual existence".​

But defining a word doesn't demonstrate a paradox.



Great, now set up a logical paradox about the Trinity and then demonstrate a contradiction.

Making self-declarations that Jesus is a Trinity is not a paradox. It's a fallacy of equivocation.

But you would have known that if you knew what the Hypostatic Union teaches.

Are you sincere enough to learn the doctrine?

Heb 1:3
Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all thingsby the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

“person” is a poor translation for hypostasis.
There is no word for “person” in the Bible. The word in the Bible is “face”. And individuals were known by their face, and whether they were male or female.


The idea in Heb 1:3 is that Christ is an exact imprint of the Father. An imprint image of the original reality which is the Father.
This is spoken of Christ after having purged our sins and sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high.

This could not be said of him until then. Before then, he was the image of God like all the rest of man. A dying image. A growing old and dying image.

Since it is that you believe “image” refers to something other than what it means. There is no agreement.

 

[Arial]

This is what makes me think you are simply trolling. You are not demonstrating the paradox but simply making self-declarations. Instead of making bare assertions, demonstrate it and make your statements is true and valid. That is how we have discussions.

Good luck with that.

 

[Binyawmene]

Heb 1:3
Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all thingsby the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

“person” is a poor translation for hypostasis.
There is no word for “person” in the Bible. The word in the Bible is “face”. And individuals were known by their face, and whether they were male or female.


The idea in Heb 1:3 is that Christ is an exact imprint of the Father. An imprint image of the original reality which is the Father.
This is spoken of Christ after having purged our sins and sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high.

This could not be said of him until then. Before then, he was the image of God like all the rest of man. A dying image. A growing old and dying image.

Since it is that you believe “image” refers to something other than what it means. There is no agreement.

And yet you failed to do one thing by all your evasions.

Set up a logical paradox about the Trinity/Hypostatic Union and then demonstrate a contradiction.

Until then, I can't see how a discussion with you will go anywhere.

 

[Binyawmene]

Good luck with that.

Yeah, I think I'll pass until the poster can come up with something of substance.

 

[LeviR]

You don't know what they understood. It is evident that the Prophets knew who the Messiah was. Isiah called him Mighty God. David wrote of him as his Lord. David asked God to not remove the Holy Spirit from him. I believe there is only one God. That God is One. I also believe he is triune.

Jhn 8:54
Jesus answered, “If I honor Myself, My honor is nothing. It is My Father who honors Me, of whom you say that He is your God.

Jhn 8:55
“Yet you have not known Him, but I know Him. And if I say, ‘I do not know Him,’ I shall be a liar like you; but I do know Him and keep His word.

The honor which Jesus deserves is not of Himself. It is the honor of the Father to the Son, which is cause to honor the Son.
To say that Jesus deserves honor because He is God is to neglect what he says and disregard the fact that it is the Father who honors the Son.
We honor the Son because the Father honors Him. Not because He honors Himself as God.

The God whom the Jews said was their God was the Father. But they did not know Him because they did not keep His word, nor had they faith. They were self-righteous.

 

[LeviR]

And yet you failed to do one thing by all your evasions.

Set up a logical paradox about the Trinity/Hypostatic Union and then demonstrate a contradiction.

Until then, I can't see how a discussion with you will go anywhere.

Evasion?
The text I posted, Heb 1:3 is the main reference for the Trinity idea of hypostasis. They point to that as biblical evidence for the hypostatic union.