Is God one or three?

Well that lost any and all sincerity. Its actually getting kind of annoying. Proof? Yeah, I doubt there's going to be anything that anyone can show you that you would accept as proof of the trinity.But so what? Why should I care if the trinity can't be proved by the Bible?You know what else you can't prove with the Bible? That the Earth is sphere, or that spiders have eight legs. So what? I'm sure you've heard the part about in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and was God. And then later the Word became flesh.There's also this part in Matthew:Matt 3: 16-17 (NIV):

quote:

---

As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. And a voice from heaven said, This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.

---

Here we have Jesus, the Spirit of God, and God the Father all at the same place at the same time.So, the Trinity thing isn't just wholly made up. It stems from the Bible, but I agree that there isn't going to be anything like proof in there. And yet in Genesis, God talks about thing being made "in OUR image" and "they will be like one of US"So that's proof that God is more than one.

No, not necessarily. I can be a father and a son and I think I have a spirit. According to the story, God sent himself as his son.

If somebody was talking to you and referred to themself in third person plural, i.e. "us or we", then yeah, you might think they have multiple personality disorder. Because Christians believe in the trinity. So, at best, you have a contradiction. But nonetheless, you have God referring to himself in the plural. You can speculate all you want, but where is your Biblical proof that God was not referring to himself as plural? And a third explanation is that he has multiple personality disorder. We can make up all kinds of stuff.And just because he refers to himself in the singular in other instances does not mean that he is not referring to himself in the plural in this one.

And that the Bible says that Jesus came and said that he was God's son is also simple observation. That the Bible says that God is also the Holy Spirit is also simple observation.So we can simply observe that the Bible says that God is made up of three different parts. Yeah, one with three parts. Nah, Jesus showed us just how wrong the Jews were.

Yeah, its absurd to speculate any reason why a god would say that it is one in some places and then refer to itself in the plural in others. One, with three parts. Here maybe this will help you understand: See how there ONE clover, but it is made up of three parts? You could edit the size and colors of your words all you want, but you'd just be wasting you time exalting the fact that there's only one clover in that picture. Nobody is disagreeing with that. That's not even true. There's Christians who believe in the NT and deny the trinity. It doesn't go against it, it adds to it. Its further revelaiton that God is one and made up of three parts. Catch up already. Nah, that's false. You've misunderstood the concept. Try looking at the clover leaves again. Then tell me how many leaves it has. Then tell me how many clovers are in the picture.You don't have to say there is more than one clover in that picture to see that it has three leaves. No, that's not clear at all. You're premises aren't even right. It doesn't matter if some messianic prophecies were fulfilled or not and when you look at how Jesus taught us to pray, you'll see that he says to pray your "Y-H-W-H", or more rightly: God the Father.So, once you get it straightened out, you'll see the error of your ways.

Do you not know how to do quoting here? Then what is your "also" referring to? Its a dishonest and nonsensical red herring if its not referring to the story.And start using the quotes.From the previous message: How do you know that? What makes you think you'd know anything about a god?Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

I already answered them. You're done because you're wrong and are unable to make any more arguments.If you can use the quote function, write coherently, and ask relevant questions, then maybe you'll actually contribute to the discussion.

No, there is only one clover in that picture. The clover is not three, it is one.But of course you're just playing dumb to try to discredit the trinity doctrine.

Well, it was a big "IF"...Anyways, it goes to show that I was right when I wrote this:

quote:

---

You're done because you're wrong and are unable to make any more arguments.

---

Let me know when you get around to finding a coherent argument.

The Bible was wrong, that's why God had to send himself in the form of a man to get us to get it right.You're too focused on what letters appear on these pieces of paper to see the bigger picture of what we should actually be doing with our lives.Just be excellent to each other, that is what it is as simple as.

I think you're trying to say that there's an unstated implication in the phrase "is one". You're trying to say that means "is one part", but that's not what the Bible actually says, that just your own man-made theory.Given that there is nothing else in the universe that "is one part", there's no reason to think God would be like that either.

Your therefore is just your own interpretation, and it doesn't follow.Three in one is still one. You're just assuming that when it says that god is one that it is saying that god is one part.Really, though, it has more to do with the ancient hebrews dealing with a monaltry. Monolatry - WikipediaIt doesn't have anything to do with the trinity.And saying God is one part is just putting unnecessary limits on God. Nothing is just one part. Everything is made up of multiple parts.

Well of course. I mean, have you read the Old Testament? That god was a jerk. Good thing he got replaced.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

Three in one is still one. You're just assuming that when it says that god is one that it is saying that god is one part.Really, though, it has more to do with the ancient hebrews dealing with a monaltry. Monolatry - WikipediaIt doesn't have anything to do with the trinity.

Um, I don't know what to say. I think you're right.So... thanks.