SRB

No. The shape-changer idea won't work for the Christian Trinity. The members of the Christian Trinity are supposed to exist at the same time. They cannot change from one to another. Otherwise they could not have had conversations with each other; nor could the Father have raised Jesus; nor could Jesus sit at the right hand of the Father in Heaven, etc, etc.

Sometimes Christians say that the relationship between Father, Son and Holy Spirit is like that between water, ice and steam. That theory is essentially the one you suggest here, and it fails to make sense of the Doctrine of the Trinity for the reason I give.

SRB

Pyrrho

Some of you may enjoy what Ingersoll had to say about this:

http://www.churchofhumanbodies.org/c.../trinity.shtml

net2002

Originally posted by net2002
Why didn't the son beget the father?

Because the son is defined as the one begotten by the father.
quote:


ts:So does human nature. It should be possible for the son to be begotten of the father, because if the son can become an embryo, then why wouldn’t it be possible for the son to become the father, or beget another son to form 4 in 1 quaddity?


Lets get to the point - if X, Y and Z were
contingent entities, then how can contingent + contingent + contingent = non-contingent? - since, if all three were necessary beings *on their own*,they would have no need for the other two. If X was a necessary being, say,it would necessarily exclude Y and Z (necessity is a sufficient condition for excluding Y and Z).

I have no idea what you are meaning by the words necessary and contingent. Personally I would say that the Father is necessary and that the Son and Spirit are probably contingent. I have no idea why you think that the necessity of the Father would "necessarily exclude" the Son and Spirit.

ts:Imagine if x was creating earth, and y and z come along and interfere with x, would x say you are not needed, because I can handle this all by my self?

If the son and spirit is dependant, then this means they can not fend for themselves.The big daddy decides.

More to come.

Tercel

Whoops.
I my earlier post to Conchobar, I wrote "Tertullian died over a century before Arius was born". I obviously can't keep track of my centuries in my head. Arius was in fact born in the same certury as Tertullian died, ie the 3rd century.

Infidelettante

quote:SRB
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by JTVrocher
The key to understanding this trinity is movement. The deity is seen as moving through the three aspects becoming one and then another and another still. In one sense the three aspects never exist at the same time but the deity displays the aspect required to experiance or interact with a particular event or condition of creation.

Could such an understanding be applied to the Christian God?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No. The shape-changer idea won't work for the Christian Trinity. The members of the Christian Trinity are supposed to exist at the same time. They cannot change from one to another. Otherwise they could not have had conversations with each other; nor could the Father have raised Jesus; nor could Jesus sit at the right hand of the Father in Heaven, etc, etc.

Sometimes Christians say that the relationship between Father, Son and Holy Spirit is like that between water, ice and steam. That theory is essentially the one you suggest here, and it fails to make sense of the Doctrine of the Trinity for the reason I give.

SRB
__________________________________________________ __
Hello SRB
The greater problem for Christians has always been to explain how their God can be beside his self. I do not try to make sense of the doctrine of the Trinity. It is too obviously nonsensical. I offer an explanation which attempts to bring the Trinity down to a managable level.

If the Christian God was to exist and was he triune is it more likely that he is three persons with one essence or one essense using three manifestations? The manifestations need not appear to us one at a time. I recall from scripture the Father speaking at the baptism of Jesus as the Holy Spirit hovered above the pool.

That the three appear at the same place at the same time does not preclude a deity who can appear as a burning bush from making it seem so. The deity existed as Jesus. The other two manifestations, even in scripture, are at best symbolic of the Father and Holy Spitit. A voice out of the blue and a dove.

That the deity would inhabit one manifestation while the other two are made to appear is not a proof against my offer. If the deity is one essence using three manifestations the purpose of the mulitipal manifestations would be just that, to appear as separate entities with distinct offices.

It may help to think of the trinity as a public relations ploy. If the deity had no need to relate to people would there be any need for the trinity? I do not think so. It is to the deitys' advantage to appear to his creation in a manner to his advantage. The stern Father warns of failure to accept the sacrificial Son while the Holy Spirit begs everyone to play nice and get along.

JT