The Pope goes full retard

[Ron]

Islamic understandings of God are identical to Jewish ones.  If you believe in God how Moses describes God in the bible, you are in accord with both Jews and Muslims.  So no, not a person.

How do you know which scripture (for example, yours versus a JW) to read?

If all you ever read was the Torah you would never come away thinking God was not a person.

If the Jews deny the personhood of God then that comes from centuries of extra biblical commentary and tradition among the Jews, not a plain reading of the scriptures.

  

[Ron]

Ron,

Your first line is that God has no material substance.  Yet Jesus had a body.  How are those two propositions not blatantly contradicting?

Jesus became flesh but his life and being is not of the flesh. His temporal body was by definition temporary, while he being God is eternal spirit. Jesus incarnated in space and time for a specific purpose and for a specific reason.  

His purpose was to purge us of our sins allowing us to enter into Gods eternal life. The reason is that God loves us, according to the gospel.

God is the source of life.

God is the source of being (personhood).

God is the source of love.





 

[Perd Hapley]

De Selby, can you explain how the God of the Jewish scriptures is impersonal, or without person-hood? He speaks. He wills. He plans. He makes man in His Image. He loves and hates. He speaks of Israel as His wife, or His beloved. Seems kind of personny to me.

[Hawkmoon]

You could also say that about the word "God." Do you think it's an important distinction?

Well, yes ... I guess I do. But I'm a pedantic sort of chap anyway.

[De Selby]

De Selby, can you explain how the God of the Jewish scriptures is impersonal, or without person-hood? He speaks. He wills. He plans. He makes man in His Image. He loves and hates. He speaks of Israel as His wife, or His beloved. Seems kind of personny to me.

Okay, first tell me what "personhood" is and we'll see.  It looks like you're just using it as short hand for human like behaviours.  If that's all it means, it doesn't really add anything to the concept of the trinity.  It is a behaviour and not a substance.

Ron, you're repeating contradictions - God is limitless yet has a body, God is eternal yet "incarnates in temporal form" whatever that means.  It's impossible to elaborate it logically because it is at its core a textbook example of contradiction.

God is limitless and not human and God is human and has a body.  There is one God, unified and God is not unified (triune).  That's how you define a contradiction - A and Not A.

This is no doubt a large part of why as far back as Christianity has writings, people have been arguing about the trinity.

[MechAg94]

De Selby, can you explain how the God of the Jewish scriptures is impersonal, or without person-hood? He speaks. He wills. He plans. He makes man in His Image. He loves and hates. He speaks of Israel as His wife, or His beloved. Seems kind of personny to me.

Hate is a sin.  God is without sin.  I forget term I heard used about applying human motivations/traits to God.  I guess I am not really clear on what you mean by "person" either.  I tend to think of people I have come across that seem to humanize God nearly to the point of not believing.  I don't think that is where you are coming from though. 

[Perd Hapley]

Yes, and other matters

So, before we move on, are you ceding the point that the scriptures teach the trinity?
 
I'm not up to speed on the JW's issues concerning "God" vs "Jehovah." If, perhaps, they think there's something immoral about using one over the other, then I suppose it would be on them to explain it from scripture. Though I don't know if they claim to hold to any of the solas, so it may be moot. Double moot, since they don't hold to scripture, to begin with (having concocted an altered translation).

If you mean, how do we correct them on issues of translation? I don't think sola scriptura is meant to cover such things. Sola scriptura, as I understand it, states that "all truth necessary for our salvation and spiritual life is taught either explicitly or implicitly in Scripture."* I don't think the proper translation or transmission of texts falls under the rubric of things pertaining to salvation or spiritual life. The more penetrating question I've heard posed by a Catholic, is "how can Protestants say 'sola scriptura,' and disregard the church or tradition, when the canon was handed down by the church's tradition?" To both objections, I'd have to point out that I don't think sola scriptura was meant to apply before scriptura. Before we can limit our authority to the scriptures, we must have scriptures to begin with. I don't think sola scriptura was meant to suggest the idea that Christians in Macedonia, in the mid-first-century, could only rely on scriptures that had not reached them yet.

I'm sure, in the past 499 years, others have explained this more cogently. Also, I'm assuming the most exclusive understanding of sola scriptura. There are other, more inclusive, notions within Protestantism/Evangelicalism.

In the Anglican tradition, Sacred Scripture, tradition, and reason form the Anglican triad or "three-legged stool", formulated by the Anglican theologian Richard Hooker.[4][31] "Building on the Anglican theological tradition, Wesley added a fourth emphasis, experience. The resulting four components or "sides" of the [Wesleyan] quadrilateral are (1) Scripture, (2) tradition, (3) reason, and (4) experience.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura

Also, I happened to come across this in my reading tonight:

8 See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits[a] of the world, and not according to Christ.

Colossians 2.8 - a Biblical admonition to put Christ above tradition. Christ is "the Living Word."


* http://www.ligonier.org/blog/what-does-sola-scriptura-mean/

[Perd Hapley]

Hate is a sin.  God is without sin.  I forget term I heard used about applying human motivations/traits to God.  I guess I am not really clear on what you mean by "person" either.  I tend to think of people I have come across that seem to humanize God nearly to the point of not believing.  I don't think that is where you are coming from though. 

"Was not Esau Jacob’s brother? saith the LORD: yet I loved Jacob, 3 And I hated Esau."
Malachi 1.2-3

"16 These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:

17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,

18 An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,

19 A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren."

Proverbs 6


I believe there are many other such passages.

[Perd Hapley]

Okay, first tell me what "personhood" is and we'll see.

It's not exactly a new, or even a very controversial topic. If you've ever taken a course in comparative religions, this should have been covered.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_god#References

http://www.religionfacts.com/trinitarian-monotheism

http://www.exploregod.com/is-god-a-personal-god



On the topic of the Trinity, for De Selby, or anyone else, this seems like a fairly good overview.
https://bible.org/article/trinity-solution-not-problem-part-1
https://bible.org/article/trinity-solution-not-problem-part-2

[De Selby]

So, before we move on, are you ceding the point that the scriptures teach the trinity?
 

 "how can Protestants say 'sola scriptura,' and disregard the church or tradition, when the canon was handed down by the church's tradition?" To both objections, I'd have to point out that I don't think sola scriptura was meant to apply before scriptura. Before we can limit our authority to the scriptures, we must have scriptures to begin with. I don't think sola scriptura was meant to suggest the idea that Christians in Macedonia, in the mid-first-century, could only rely on scriptures that had not reached them yet.

I'm sure, in the past 499 years, others have explained this more cogently. Also, I'm assuming the most exclusive understanding of sola scriptura. There are other, more inclusive, notions within Protestantism/Evangelicalism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura

Also, I happened to come across this in my reading tonight:
 Colossians 2.8 - a Biblical admonition to put Christ above tradition. Christ is "the Living Word."


* http://www.ligonier.org/blog/what-does-sola-scriptura-mean/

This and the JW are related points - how did you recognise the text of the biblical admonition as scripture except by reference to the tradition that it is?  Protestants aren't the only ones who've failed to answer that question - it's been a problem since before there were scriptures.  Just like the trinity has been. 

In sum:

No, even orthodox texts do not obviously make the case for the trinity and
No, those texts themselves aren't obviously the source of Christian truth unless you believe some authority and tradition is valid for the purposes of defining what is and isn't Christian text.

Then there's the trinity itself:  God is limitless and eternal.  And God is a man, temporal and with a body.  In other words, God has a body and God does not have a body.  At the same time.

I'm reminded of a fantastic Irish novel, where James Joyce realises that the Holy Spirit was the result of poor understanding of literature and spends his days arguing for worship of the holy duet.

[Perd Hapley]

This and the JW are related points - how did you recognise the text of the biblical admonition as scripture except by reference to the tradition that it is?  Protestants aren't the only ones who've failed to answer that question - it's been a problem since before there were scriptures.  Just like the trinity has been. 

In sum:

No, even orthodox texts do not obviously make the case for the trinity and
No, those texts themselves aren't obviously the source of Christian truth unless you believe some authority and tradition is valid for the purposes of defining what is and isn't Christian text.

You're just restating objections you've made already. I will refer you to my above posts. 
 

Then there's the trinity itself:  God is limitless and eternal.  And God is a man, temporal and with a body.  In other words, God has a body and God does not have a body.  At the same time.

Yeah. It's almost as if He were a superior being.

https://bible.org/article/trinity-solution-not-problem-part-1
https://bible.org/article/trinity-solution-not-problem-part-2

I'm reminded of a fantastic Irish novel, where James Joyce realises that the Holy Spirit was the result of poor understanding of literature and spends his days arguing for worship of the holy duet.

Now that's obviously false. Joyce never wrote anything "fantastic."

[roo_ster]

James Joyce: The author folk would much rather be seen reading rather than actually read.

[TommyGunn]

........
On the topic of the Trinity, for De Selby, or anyone else, this seems like a fairly good overview.
https://bible.org/article/trinity-solution-not-problem-part-1
https://bible.org/article/trinity-solution-not-problem-part-2

Wow.....I found those articles both fascinating, yet remarkably specious.  Such intellectual leaps should be rewarded with some kind of gymnastical award! 
"All things not yet created." This in a box (think Venn Diagram with angles).  If it is not created, though, by definition, it does not exist. Thus it ought not "be" anywhere.......
Ouch.   An interesting treatment.....but those poor Jehovahs Witnesses,.....they won't be convinced, I tell you!

[Perd Hapley]

Wow.....I found those articles both fascinating, yet remarkably specious.  Such intellectual leaps should be rewarded with some kind of gymnastical award! 
"All things not yet created." This in a box (think Venn Diagram with angles).  If it is not created, though, by definition, it does not exist. Thus it ought not "be" anywhere.......
Ouch.   An interesting treatment.....but those poor Jehovahs Witnesses,.....they won't be convinced, I tell you!

I guess you're referring to the phrase "Things that never came into being." That means uncreated things. In other words, God. He exists without having been created.

[Ron]

Okay, first tell me what "personhood" is and we'll see.  It looks like you're just using it as short hand for human like behaviours.  If that's all it means, it doesn't really add anything to the concept of the trinity.  It is a behaviour and not a substance.

Ron, you're repeating contradictions - God is limitless yet has a body, God is eternal yet "incarnates in temporal form" whatever that means.  It's impossible to elaborate it logically because it is at its core a textbook example of contradiction.

God is limitless and not human and God is human and has a body.  There is one God, unified and God is not unified (triune).  That's how you define a contradiction - A and Not A.

This is no doubt a large part of why as far back as Christianity has writings, people have been arguing about the trinity.

The Apostle Paul said at Mars Hill:
"For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring."

If I say God has a body, then you say is he not a spirit or infinite.

If I say God is spirit only then you say, what has he to do with temporal (in time) material things?

God is God of the spiritual as well as the material.

God incarnating as Christ is not limiting in the least. God is present at every moment of time and every location in space. Revealing himself to us in a material representation is not outside of the power of the one who is the creator and is the ultimate or final reality.

You are stuck in dualistic thinking. Very post modern of you I may say.

There is no upper story where everything is spiritual contrasted against a lower story where everything is material.

The material world only exists by the will of God the creator who is Spirit and who at his pleasure may reveal himself in material form. Matter exists at Gods pleasure.

Post modern thought, if it even acknowledges a spiritual realm, posits the spirit realm is only spiritual, disconnected and inaccessible to the "real" world.

Falsely believing the material realm is only matter, materialism, and that is all we can really "know".

In truth reality is both spiritual and material for us. To try and lock one in the upper story where it is disconnected from our experiential reality is a major failing of post modern thought.  

Where does life come from DeSelby? What differentiates it from non-life?

Why don't you define personhood for us. Is there really a you there or are you just a program running that has a predetermined course based on inputs supplied by nature?

What is love?

These are all upper story questions for which I suspect you have less than adequate answers.

Post modernism seems to always lead to nihilism.



 

[KD5NRH]

What is love?

Bacon.  I thought we already settled that elsewhere.

[Ron]

Bacon.  I thought we already settled that elsewhere.

We have a prophet amongst us!

[grampster]

"Then there's the trinity itself:  God is limitless and eternal.  And God is a man, temporal and with a body.  In other words, God has a body and God does not have a body.  At the same time."

Matthew 19:26

[Fitz]

Wow.....I found those articles both fascinating, yet remarkably specious.  Such intellectual leaps should be rewarded with some kind of gymnastical award! 
"All things not yet created." This in a box (think Venn Diagram with angles).  If it is not created, though, by definition, it does not exist. Thus it ought not "be" anywhere.......
Ouch.   An interesting treatment.....but those poor Jehovahs Witnesses,.....they won't be convinced, I tell you!

God being the "uncaused root cause" is one of the cornerstones of his God-hood, and is indeed one of the major lynchpins of some of the newer apologetics that study God , science, and attempts to reconcile the two. Francis Collins among others have written about this very aspect

[Ron]

The Trinity being revealed to us has very powerful implications.

Personhood, relationships, communication and love are not based on need(s) but in Gods very nature. Perfect relationships with perfect communication in perfect love between distinct yet harmonious individuals.

Gods nature is family in perfection.

[Perd Hapley]

The Trinity being revealed to us has very powerful implications.

Personhood, relationships, communication and love are not based on need(s) but in Gods very nature. Perfect relationships with perfect communication in perfect love between distinct yet harmonious individuals.

Gods nature is family in perfection.

Also, God doesn't create the universe because He's lonely, and needs some pets, or someone to talk to. Having love and companionship within Himself is a part of His perfection.

[grampster]

Since God does not exist in time as He actually created time when He created the universe, ponder His reality in the sense of no before and no after.  Brain twisting into knots yet?

[Perd Hapley]

Since God does not exist in time as He actually created time when He created the universe, ponder His reality in the sense of no before and no after.  Brain twisting into knots yet?

Indeed. What tense do you even use to describe the actions of such an one? Creates? Created? Does it matter?

[De Selby]

Indeed. What tense do you even use to describe the actions of such an one? Creates? Created? Does it matter?

It does matter if you cannot describe it in terms that are without contradiction.

There's a huge difference between "this is mysterious" and "this is a triangle with four angles"

[Ron]

It does matter if you cannot describe it in terms that are without contradiction.

There's a huge difference between "this is mysterious" and "this is a triangle with four angles"

You seem to be operating under the presupposition that our universe is the sum total of everything, ie reality.

Existing both eternally and being present at a particular space and time is not a contradiction if there is more there "there" than just our universe.

God exists outside of and beyond the universe but the universe only exists "in" God as God is the totality of reality. For God to insert himself into space and time creates no contradiction.

Even observations in physics have led many down the path of there potentially being more than just our universe; all the way to string theory which posits multiverses with different laws of physics.

Your error is that you suppose you know better than us the answer to these questions of cosmology. And cosmology more accurately falls into the realm of philosophy than it does "hard science".