Jesus clearly made statements that prove that he was not God or a God ..but The Trinity is used by some to claim that Jesus is God ..since God invoke the rule not to worship any others but him as God then doesn't worshiping Jesus as God violate God's law

surely some will dispute that Jesus made any such statements but what are some statements in the bible made by Jesus that can not be disputed that he was not God

If you're trying to make sense of religion, you've got a long road ahead of you.

religion is very logical ..it's the believers that act illogical

I've never heard that Jesus is God. I grew up with "Jesus is Lord".

divine economy, the Son and the Spirit are not divine in a static way but in a dynamic way; they proceed from the one substance as they have separate tasks to fulfill. They are three in order and distinction, but one in substance.

Lord,God, Elvis Pressely... it's all the same

"AlecStar" you described them as being demi-gods ..not as true Gods since one may have lesser powers than the others

If you are operating on the assumption that "Lord", and "God" mean exactly the same thing, then there isn't any way that the concept of the Trinity could possibly make sense to you.

As I understand it, the three are simply different manifestations of the same substance. Like ice, water and steam are simply different manifestations of the same substance.

i think what i was taught is.. he was the "son of God"....until his resurrection...then he became god...

then again,,, i was taught to worship Mary!!! so what do i know???

"Skyhook"..it's not me that are making any assumptions..it's the bible that claim that Yehova,Yahweh,God and Lord are all the same ..



if that same concept applied to Jesus and God.. then wouldn't Jesus retain all the same knowledge as God ..in the bible Jesus have said things that show that he has less knowledge then God and therefore can not be omniscient as God supposely is

One would think so. But apparently that's one of the traits of that particular manifestation...it does not appear omniscient, just as ice does not appear gaseous.

"ddn122" ..after the resurrection Jesus wasn't supposed to be God ..Jesus was to sit at the right hand of God

"Skyhook" in certain conditions ice does appear as being gasous ..but anyway as ice, water and steam change from one manifestation to the next the odds of every molecule returning to the same exact block of ice or retaining the exact same properties before the change is most unlikely

this is why your concept unfortunely explains why Jesus and God are not "one God" with the exact same properties

Well of course the analogy isn't an exact parallel to the actuality. An analogy never is. (The map is not the territory.) So I could stretch the analogy way out of shape in the other direction and say that there is no change taking place with the Trinity, so retaining the exact same properties in the face of change is no more relevant than is the gaseous state of ice.

that's why using science latent analogies to explain religious belief is never a good idea ..because ice, steam and water is under the jurisdictional control of it's enviroment and God supposely is not ..



you could say it "Skyhook" ..but the change is clearly to obvious ..even Jesus never made references to be a part of any Trinity



everything is relevant to say it's not is to dismiss the evidence that shows it's revelancy ...the fact that ice changes to gas and not retain the same properties during it's change back to ice is very revelant it you choose to use it as an analogy to explain The Trinity

the "trinity" is not found in the book, that is the thelogical dogma of the church that father,son,HS are one.They derived this from statements in both the old and new testaments concerning gods words and jesus' words in the new. such as:

i and the father are one
and i will send my holy spirit

and in john claiming to be the son of god also.

these things lead the way for the developement of the sacred trinity.

Ok. Do you have an idea for some other type of analogy that would be a good idea? Or should we just drop the use of analogies altogether?

I’m not aware of any scripture that refers to any of the three parts of the Trinity “changing” from one state to another. So it’s not obvious to me.

I didn’t see any evidence that shows it’s relevancy. I assumed we were talking about biblical scripture, which would make biblical scripture the only evidence available. And as I said above, I know of nothing in those scriptures that supports the idea of “change” within the Trinity.

Well, I won’t argue with that. So, since you chose to use the “change” analogy, you’ll have to explain to me how it is relevant to the explanation of the Trinity because I don’t understand it.

yes "Tribo" which is an indication that Jesus lack the ominsciency of God and that the holy spirit was some type of mindless power source

"Skyhook" that's the point...you are trying to explain religious beliefs using scientific facts ..it doesn't work because it is like trying to claim faith as being sufficent proof

well then i guess this begs the question:

do you believe in plurality of anything?