3 distinct eternal consciousnesses

[PappaBear]

No. It is quite clear what Trinity means. The creeds have stood the test of time. Even the "Shield of the Trinity" illustration of the triangle (PappaBear's satanic pentagram), has been with us for centuries (since 1200s)

Nicene (325 ad)
The Definition of Chalcedon (A.D. 451)
Athanasian Creed (ca. A.D. 500)
Second Council of Constantinople (A.D. 533)
Eleventh Council of Toledo (675 AD)
... and on and on...

The agreement is quite remarkable in its historical defense.

Quite remarkable, yes.  Remarkable that its history, as you have given, begins 200+ years following the close of the Christian Canon!  Per your review, Abraham could not have known it, Elijah could not have preached it, Peter, James & John were unaware of this hypostases, and even Paul to whom many mysteries were revealed was left in the dark on it.

Your appreciation of those anathemas for disagreeing with these prelates only serves to justify the condemnations and murders performed by your harlot church against separatist Christians who long proclaimed the Bible as their only rule of faith and practice.  It appears you would have not only burned Baptists, but you would have put the torch to dear old Martin Luther with a happy vigor, as well.

There is also a distinction between the Word of God and the mere traditions of men, yet you seem to be performing another dogmatic presto-chango where you erase those distinctions and practice a "oneness of tradition" yourself.

 

[christundivided]

Quite remarkable, yes.  Remarkable that its history, as you have given, begins 200+ years following the close of the Christian Canon!  Per your review, Abraham could not have known it, Elijah could not have preached it, Peter, James & John were unaware of this hypostases, and even Paul to whom many mysteries were revealed was left in the dark on it.

You couldn't have possibly stopped to even think before you made such an argument.

By your own REASONING... Abraham didn't know of the writings of Isiah, Jeremiah, Amos, and right down the line. Elijah didn't know of the wonders of Pentecost and the full preaching of the Gospel. Paul didn't know of the writing of The Revelation. Neither did Peter nor James. None of them knew of the KJV.... nor wrote of it, nor promoted it. Lets just cast them all away.

You're such a total loser. A hack and ridiculous excuse for a teacher of those on Christ Jesus.

By the way, The doctrine of the Trinity and its teachings extend all the way back to Abraham's meeting with the "Three". Its foreshadowed in the teachings of "God's Word, God's Wisdom, and God's Will".

 

[FSSL]

You silly little bear! You are at least two months late and way too ignorant of the scriptures (and our discussion) to even start redeeming yourself.

There is also a distinction between the Word of God and the mere traditions of men, yet you seem to be performing another dogmatic presto-chango where you erase those distinctions and practice a "oneness of tradition" yourself.

Please try to keep up with the discussion. The accusation was made that there is no definition for the Trinity. We can find the earliest definitions way back. Even YOU just provided a definition. Shall we just accuse you of "mere traditions of man's words?" So, pare back your accusations and follow the discussion.

Quite remarkable, yes.  Remarkable that its history, as you have given, begins 200+ years following the close of the Christian Canon!  Per your review, Abraham could not have known it, Elijah could not have preached it, Peter, James & John were unaware of this hypostases, and even Paul to whom many mysteries were revealed was left in the dark on it.

Are you ignorant of Hebrews 1:3? The word behind the phrase "exact representation" is "hypostasis"
Do you remember? This is a passage that speaks of the person of the Father.

Steve denies the use of the term "person" being applied to members of the Godhead. So before you start giving Sabellians leverage, once again, learn the subject. You have had plenty of opportunity to support the Trinitarian cause. You have been negligent and you cannot find agreement with those of us doing the heavy lifting.

 

[FSSL]

The Social Trinity view is the major perspective that actively holds to 3 distinct eternal consciousnesses.  There can some who hold that view of 3dec who do not consider themselves as Social Trinitarians.

Since the Social Trinitarianism movement is rather new, very few journal articles address it and it is missing from standard evangelical theologies, how do you call it "the major perspective?"

What data suggests this?

That's right... you didn't have the data...

 

[PappaBear]

Please try to keep up with the discussion. The accusation was made that there is no definition for the Trinity. We can find the earliest definitions way back.

Try to read my post.  Get one of your old Special Ed teachers from college to help, if you must.  You posted your "earliest definitions" from "way back" and lo and behold, they ain't from way back far enough!  Because of your distaste for and hatred of the scriptures, you disregard them and cling to religious dogma, only invented and defined CENTURIES after Christ.

Quite remarkable, yes.  Remarkable that its history, as you have given, begins 200+ years following the close of the Christian Canon!  Per your review, Abraham could not have known it, Elijah could not have preached it, Peter, James & John were unaware of this hypostases, and even Paul to whom many mysteries were revealed was left in the dark on it.

Are you ignorant of Hebrews 1:3? The word behind the phrase "exact representation" is "hypostasis"
Do you remember? This is a passage that speaks of the person of the Father.

Really?  And the whole time I was thinking that the word behind "express image" was the Greek word "charakter."  The word "hupostasis" does not come in until speaking directly of the "person" of God.  But while we are at it, did you not also notice about Hebrews 1:3 what is used to sustain all things (or, as the King James has it, "upholding all things")?  Hint:  it ain't the word Logos, is it? 

those of us doing the heavy lifting.

You are a little too light in the loafers to be doing much lifting.  I certainly do not march in lockstep with Romanists, and would never exalt tradition over the words of God as you do. 

 

[PappaBear]

He told us that the NT writers knew nothing of hypostasis and now admits it is in the original language! Eventhough I did err in my phrasing, it is there after all!

How does this mind work? How can one continue to defend his point that none of the people in the Bible knew about hypostasis?

I smell a troll.

To paraphrase an historical saying, you have met the enemy, and he be you!

No. It is quite clear what Trinity means. The creeds have stood the test of time. Even the "Shield of the Trinity" illustration of the triangle (PappaBear's satanic pentagram), has been with us for centuries (since 1200s)

Nicene (325 ad)
The Definition of Chalcedon (A.D. 451)
Athanasian Creed (ca. A.D. 500)
Second Council of Constantinople (A.D. 533)
Eleventh Council of Toledo (675 AD)
... and on and on...

The agreement is quite remarkable in its historical defense.

Quite remarkable, yes.  Remarkable that its history, as you have given, begins 200+ years following the close of the Christian Canon!  Per your review, Abraham could not have known it, Elijah could not have preached it, Peter, James & John were unaware of this hypostases, and even Paul to whom many mysteries were revealed was left in the dark on it.

Hopefully, you have not put away that number to your old Special Ed professor from your Special Ed Kollege (written in phonics to help with your special affliction).  Call it again and ask them to explain to you the meaning of the phrase "Per your review."  Now, look at the earliest date that *YOU* listed for the creedalistic view.  After you have done that, school BOY, then answer just who it is that tells us the NT writers knew nothing?  It is you, FSSL/admin/FreeSundaySchoolLessons/YouGetWhatYouPaidFor.  The same one who denied the plenary inspiration of the scriptures by insisting the dogmas, creeds, and councils MUST BE used to explain this all-important doctrine because the scriptures were so deficient in its teaching.

Here is a little something for you, the person who so enjoys rejecting God's Word and worships at the idol of human reasoning.

Romans 1:25  Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

 

[FSSL]

The soft underbelly writhes! PappaBear, don't deny something then get upset when we point it out in Scripture, then turn it around like it is our problem.

I get it...

• You don't like the explanations and defense of Scripture from writers centuries back (creeds/confessions). If their words are meaningless to you, then why do you attempt to do the same? Why have you set yourself up as the only authority for explaining the Trinity?
• You call yourself a Trinitarian but whenever one of us uses Scripture and various sources for defending the Trinity, you go after us instead of the Sabellian in our midst.
• You call 2 dimensional triangle illustrations of the Trinity "Satanic pentagrams and pyramids"
• You deny that 1 John 2 has anything to do with the Trinity (even when the language from that passage was used in early Trinitarian debates AND all three are mentioned in that passage as relating to each other)

KJVOism's wretched destruction and compromise of theology on display.

 

[prophet]

Try logic. Reason. Analytical thought....N/M  be yourself, we need the example to warn our kids.

Anishinabe

 

[FSSL]

The Social Trinity view is the major perspective that actively holds to 3 distinct eternal consciousnesses.  There can some who hold that view of 3dec who do not consider themselves as Social Trinitarians.

Since the Social Trinitarianism movement is rather new, very few journal articles address it and it is missing from standard evangelical theologies, how do you call it "the major perspective?"

What data suggests this?

*crickets*

 

[SaviorSelf]

No. God says he made us in his image; body, mind and spirit. 3 members, one consciousness. (I think.)

 

[Darkwing Duck]

To answer the OP:

No. The Trinity does not exists as 3 distinct "consciousness" or "minds".
I doubt any followers of the doctrine of the Trinity would argue this. Now, I myself have never thought of this before, and likely many others haven't either (and might try to say "God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit have separate minds" as a knee-jerk reaction because they are three distinct persons) but it's pretty simple to see in the Bible that they share the same mind.

Romans 11:34 - For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor? (KJV)(ASV)
“Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?” (NIV)

Emphasis on "mind" not "minds". (Also 1 Corinthians 2:16)


Logic is your friend on this one:
Clearly God, Christ and the Holy Spirit are perfect. If a being has a thought contrary to what a perfect being is thinking then by definition that being would be imperfect. Therefore The Trinity must always think alike. If they always think alike then for all practical purposes they have only 1 distinct consciousness.

(In other words if God and Jesus think differently about an issue then 1 of them is wrong - which is obviously impossible. So therefore God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit must always think the same which in practice means they have the same mind.)

 

[Ransom]

No. God says he made us in his image; body, mind and spirit. 3 members, one consciousness. (I think.)

You think wrongly. God is Spirit. He doesn't have a body. The Incarnation is not an essential attribute of God; it had a finite beginning in history, and he was complete without it.

 

[SaviorSelf]

No. God says he made us in his image; body, mind and spirit. 3 members, one consciousness. (I think.)

You think wrongly. God is Spirit. He doesn't have a body. The Incarnation is not an essential attribute of God; it had a finite beginning in history, and he was complete without it.

metaphor dude. I was saying the relationship between the members of God may be comparable to our own body, mind and spirit.

 

[Mathew Ward]

To answer the OP:

No. The Trinity does not exists as 3 distinct "consciousness" or "minds".
I doubt any followers of the doctrine of the Trinity would argue this. Now, I myself have never thought of this before, and likely many others haven't either (and might try to say "God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit have separate minds" as a knee-jerk reaction because they are three distinct persons) but it's pretty simple to see in the Bible that they share the same mind.

Romans 11:34 - For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor? (KJV)(ASV)
“Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?” (NIV)

Emphasis on "mind" not "minds". (Also 1 Corinthians 2:16)


Logic is your friend on this one:
Clearly God, Christ and the Holy Spirit are perfect. If a being has a thought contrary to what a perfect being is thinking then by definition that being would be imperfect. Therefore The Trinity must always think alike. If they always think alike then for all practical purposes they have only 1 distinct consciousness.

(In other words if God and Jesus think differently about an issue then 1 of them is wrong - which is obviously impossible. So therefore God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit must always think the same which in practice means they have the same mind.)

Mark 13:32  But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Darkwing Duck](In other words if God and Jesus think differently about an issue then 1 of them is wrong[/quote]

Possibly, but not necessarily.