Summations Only

Take a number line stretching to infinity both directions...divide it into 3 parts....is each part infinite also?

how can 1/3 of infinity be finite?

quote:

---

Reading Spinoza's "Ethics" (his most paramount work) he argues that to divide infinity by 2 you get 2 infinities, and therefore when putting them together you get an infinity twice as large, meaning it's therefore absurd for infinity to be divisible.

---

Thus I'll drop the analogy.

ok...here is another analogy. Take an infinite bucket with an infinite number of balls in it. Pour them out. Are they divisible into more than one pile?

We have several things to discuss, jar. I will include them here--though they may be slightly off-topic in regards to Trinitarian doctrine. Lets focus on the God in three persons idea first, shall we? Lets begin by discussing the nature of God, Creator of all seen and unseen, Jesus His one and only son, and the Holy Spirit. These three attributes are discussed in The Nicene Creed. Do you personally believe (though of course not know) that God worked through and was in Jesus Christ and the Comforter?And what did you mean when you stated:

Lets take this slow.You and I both believe that Jesus was raised from the dead. Which would make Him again alive. Are you suggesting that He then died of old age after He was raised from the dead?

Take a number line stretching to infinity both directions...divide it into 3 parts....is each part infinite also? Perhaps that is Jesus...while on earth, human. He died, (making Him finite) yet was raided from the Dead by one of the other two infinite parts. Does this make it any easier to understand One God in three persons?Here is another article on the matter:Doctrine of Trinity Explained

In another thread you wrote: I believe that this is explained here.

quote:

---

The doctrine of the Trinity is difficult and perplexing to us. Sometimes it
is thought that Christianity teaches the absurd notion that 1+1+1=1. That
is clearly a false equation. The term Trinity describes a relationship not of
three gods, but of one God who is three persons. Trinity does not mean
tritheism, that is, that there are three beings who together are God. The
word Trinity is used in an effort to define the fullness of the Godhead both
in terms of His unity and diversity.
The historic formulation of the Trinity is that God is one in essence and
three in person. Though the formula is mysterious and even paradoxical, it
is in no way contradictory. The unity of the Godhead is affirmed in terms
of essence or being, while the diversity of the Godhead is expressed in
terms of person.
Though the term Trinity is not found in the Bible, the concept is clearly
there. On the one hand the Bible strongly affirms the unity of God
(Deuteronomy 6:4). On the other hand the Bible clearly affirms the full
deity of the three persons of the Godhead: the Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit. The church has rejected the heresies of modalism and tritheism.
Modalism denies the distinction of persons within the Godhead, claiming
that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are just ways in which God expresses
Himself. Tritheism, on the other hand, falsely declares that there are three
beings who together make up God.
The term person does not mean a distinction in essence but a different
subsistence in the Godhead. A subsistence in the Godhead is a real
difference but not an essential difference in the sense of a difference in
being. Each person subsists or exists under the pure essence of deity.
Subsistence is a difference within the scope of being, not a separate being
or essence. All persons in the Godhead have all the attributes of deity.
There is also a distinction in the work done by each member of the Trinity.
The work of salvation is in one sense common to all three persons of the
Trinity. Yet in the manner of activity, there are differing operations
assumed by the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Father initiates
creation and redemption; the Son redeems the creation; and the Holy Spirit
regenerates and sanctifies, applying redemption to believers.
The Trinity does not refer to parts of God or even to roles. Human
analogies such as one man who is a father, son, and a husband fail to
capture the mystery of the nature of God.
The doctrine of the Trinity does not fully explain the mysterious character
of God. Rather, it sets the boundaries outside of which we must not step. It
defines the limits of our finite reflection. It demands that we be faithful to
the biblical revelation that in one sense God is one and in a different sense
He is three.

---

is anyone still confused?

Lets use logic for a moment.First some hypothetical questions:

Is the doctrine or belief in God---in general---hard to swallow?
I would say..no, not at all. To me, an invisible God makes more sense than a visible one,chiefly because a God by definition would be greater (larger,stronger,more powerful) than anything our modern minds could visibly imagine.

​

I would imagine something more along the lines of a super nova or a black hole. Way bigger than those, however. A Spirit would also make sense as God would...through such a definition be omnipresent. Sorta like the wind. Perhaps Jesus would be a bit of a stretch...a God becoming human and yet still retaining the awesome power of eternity and infinity rolled into one. In the past, humans have dreamed of gods that had bodies...but in this case Jesus is simply an extension of the infinite/eternal. Placed in a package that we can see, touch, smell, communicate with, and...yes sadly...kill. Except that death had no hold on Him.
It seems to me that for those who find such a concept hard to swallow, the main reason is simply because through lack of evidence or proof, the human mind has trouble believing.
For me its no problem. I was never chained to evidential thinking anyway. Critics may argue that a God that is not within our understanding, definition nor control is too scary. Thats the main reasoning, I think. Heck, it has even been said that if such a God did exist then so and so would oppose such a God.

---

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Whoever trusts in his own mind is a fool, but he who walks in wisdom will be delivered.~Proverbs 28:26

All I am trying to emphasize is that there are things bigger than our conception. People who claim to limit God to a fig newton of our imagination have essentially missed the point---that God is more than they can swallow.God is a much bigger concept than ringo feeding people and doing his chores. And what would "full belief" mean? Again...you limit God to a concept that can be fit in a box. You limit it to evidence. You limit it to something you can swallow.Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

According to Paul, we wouldn't want a bigger concept.(Because of our inborn desire for flesh over spirit) The jury is still out on whether we actually need it.
You know Pauls basic schpiel.

Believe in Jesus Christ - John 3:16

Repent of past sins - Luke 13:3

Confess Jesus as the Son of God - Acts 8:37; Rom. 10:10

Be baptized in water for the forgiveness of your sins - Acts 2:38; 22:16; Mark 16:16

​

jar writes:

​

Chores still need to get done and until God does them there is no other option but man doing them.
Now if you have some bigger concept that has some value or worth then perhaps this is a great time to present it.

A bigger concept than simply doing for others? Paul seemed to think that it was important to surrender your own self will---as he did---and accept Christ---as he also did.

​

Critics say he was attempting to start a new religion. Perhaps he didn't think that being Jewish was enough.

​

That's better than some modern day critics who think that God is Himself un necessary and the message does not require Him.

---

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Whoever trusts in his own mind is a fool, but he who walks in wisdom will be delivered.~Proverbs 28:26

The doctrine which you have described previously as a marketing con...that we are born into sin. I would clarify that we are born into a predisposed tendency towards selfishness, greed, and even idolatry...and that we are unaware of God. (apart from an abstract concept)
Paul markets this concept. Paul tells us that we follow the spirit of the times...(zeitgeist) until we accept Gods grace through belief in Jesus Christ as living rather than dead.I suppose critics could say that Paul had an enormous guilt complex over killing christians and by accepting the idea that Jesus was alive, it healed him of his own guilt and shame over the life lived as Saul. Paul maintains that we are by nature selfish, egotistical, unloving and proud. (and he should know these emotions...)I can imagine that you were taught differently.
"Jim, you are responsible for your own actions and what you do.""There is no magic pardon from a failed Messiah!"I would argue that the Messiah is a success based on the belief that He is alive and that we can, in communion with Him, do what needs to be done.Perhaps you were taught that each individual human already has the power within themselves to be responsible, do unto others and for others.I would argue that this message minimizes the importance of the resurrection. Because we are all in this together. YOU are not responsible. We are.

We dont know what Paul understood or did not understand. Do you mean to imply that I,Phat, understand? I will readily admit that many who have not accepted Christ behave better than many who have. The purpose of my debate is to support pauls message and to exonerate him from being either devious or mentally ill. I believe that ultimately I will not convince anyone. I believe that Jesus is in fact alive and will draw men (and women) towards Him.And i know your arguments all to well, jar. You will again ask me what "Jesus being alive" even means. I'd have to think about your assertion. In the letters that Paul supposedly authored, there is much talk about love for God and for jesus Christ. Paul also addresses his audience--his followers (well, Christs followers) in each city that he visits.I suppose my question--to myself and to the EvC audience--is whether individual change is ever given to us or whether we are expected to walk it out. (or both)I have no problem with your "Christianity is about what we do" argument. You are correct. I have so far failed at supporting my argument that we all need Jesus.I suppose I am more curious why you believe that Pauline Christianity should be opposed.You may have mentioned that much of it is a cop out. I am not persuaded that you have fully explained why it is so dishonorable to accept an ongoing pardon and why acceptance of such a belief prevents an individual from trying to do their best?

Are you asking me to explain what I believe that Gods motives are?Or more likely are you asking me to explain why God as marketed wants humans to go the extra mile?

OK. I believe that God never designed the flaws. The flaws were and are a response to our rebellion...our desire to be free from authority and be our own god(s).You yourself have said that you would defend satan in court, that you would protest a God who "fried your friends"....and that your one thing you would say to God was to leave you alone.By nature you challenge authority.Not that there is anything wrong with you---you are who you are, and I believe that God fully accepts you.Do you have any desire to communicate with Him? What would you say today...as you read this? It means to actually talk with Him. It means allowing Him to prompt you to change yourself for the better...to conform to His character. It means to quit being so stubborn and independent and trust someone in authority for once.Edited by Phat, : No reason given.