Problems In Genesis

[Joshpantera]

From the modalism link: 

 

"In some circumstances, people make the mistake of expressing God in a modalistic way to express the three Persons of God, such as using H2O as an example of three things being one which causes people to misunderstand the Trinity (i.e. water, ice, and vapor are different things but all three are still H2O, yet H2O is never all three at the same time). Some people mistakenly believe in a modalistic God out of ignorance of how to describe the Three Persons mentioned in the Bible."

 

He's probably off to explore the foundation of his heresy....

[Justus]

I am very much aware that the word used here is "Elohim" and that it is a plural form of the word. I have found that nowhere in the bible does it support the trinity, nor is there any reason to think that Elohim is plural because it represents God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.

 

Why do you insist on assuming that I am saying anything about the trinity???

 

However, as in Genesis 1:26, again in Geneis 3:22, it makes reference to the plural Elohim;

And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

 

However, if I am not mistaken, the Christians assert that it is heresy to interpret Elohim as representing Gods. Yet in John 3:24, it states that "God is a Spirit."  yet in Revelations 1:4 it is written, Rev 1:4 "...and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne;  

 

 

The old water is three states but still the same molecular compound argument. How original. Do you really think that anyone on these forums are going to buy that? Like I said earlier, the trinity is a man made concept that is not supported by the bible. The word trinity is not in the bible. Nowhere in the bible does it explicitly say that god is three beings in one. It is read into by people who think that is the case.

 

The "trinity" in my opinion is a reference to the three tabernacles referenced in Matthew 17:4, Mark 9;5, and Luke 9:33 in which Peter says "...if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias."   Those three tabernacles represent the Torah (God the Father), New Testatment (God the Son)  and  Quran (God the holy Spirit) and that these three are one as represented in 1 John 5:7, " For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

 

I am not sure what you are saying here. You are saying that god created more than Adam and Eve? Where in the Bible does it say that? The Genesis 6 passage does not support your assertion. If you read one chapter earlier, Genesis 5 is the genealogy of Adam to Noah. There were women involved in that genealogy. No male with male sex. I am totally lost as to where you got this line of thinking. It does not make any sense to me.

You say that God created Adam & Eve, but there is no scripture to support that presumption. It clearly says God made man,male and female made he them, and God called their name Adam in the day they were created.  As written in 2 Cor 11:3, "But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ."

 

However in Genesis 3:12-13,

12 "And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat."

13 "And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat."

 

It isn't until Genesis 3:20 that the name of Adam's wife is changed from Adam unto Eve.

20 "And Adam called his wife's name Eve; ..."

 

[Justus]

 

Where is our born of the Spirit and Word Christian to teach us the infinite wisdom of God?

 

 

Maybe the modalism link scared the bejebers out of him.  Time to study the Bible some more.

 

 

I love the way you presume that I am a Christian.   

[Orbit]

 

 

Where is our born of the Spirit and Word Christian to teach us the infinite wisdom of God?

 

 

Maybe the modalism link scared the bejebers out of him.  Time to study the Bible some more.

 

 

I love the way you presume that I am a Christian.   

 

Well, your profile says you believe in the Holy Ghost. So what are you? Or is it a secret? A muslim?

[sdelsolray]

 

 

Where is our born of the Spirit and Word Christian to teach us the infinite wisdom of God?

 

 

Maybe the modalism link scared the bejebers out of him.  Time to study the Bible some more.

 

 

I love the way you presume that I am a Christian.   

 

You love the way mymistake presumes you are a Christian?  Love?  Really?

 

I don't know what you are.  Should I care?  Is it important?  Please inform us, Mr. "I have 7 Posts So Far, and There Are More to Come - Be Prepared for My Coming".

[Justus]

Well, your profile says you believe in the Holy Ghost. So what are you? Or is it a secret? A muslim?

I consider myself an American.

[Storm]

 

I am not sure what you are saying here. You are saying that god created more than Adam and Eve? Where in the Bible does it say that? The Genesis 6 passage does not support your assertion. If you read one chapter earlier, Genesis 5 is the genealogy of Adam to Noah. There were women involved in that genealogy. No male with male sex. I am totally lost as to where you got this line of thinking. It does not make any sense to me.

You say that God created Adam & Eve, but there is no scripture to support that presumption. It clearly says God made man,male and female made he them, and God called their name Adam in the day they were created.  As written in 2 Cor 11:3, "But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ."

 

However in Genesis 3:12-13,

12 "And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat."

13 "And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat."

 

It isn't until Genesis 3:20 that the name of Adam's wife is changed from Adam unto Eve.

20 "And Adam called his wife's name Eve; ..."

So is this your way of saying that you believe that Adam's first wife was asherah?There are some scholars who believe this is the case. 

 

 

 

The old water is three states but still the same molecular compound argument. How original. Do you really think that anyone on these forums are going to buy that? Like I said earlier, the trinity is a man made concept that is not supported by the bible. The word trinity is not in the bible. Nowhere in the bible does it explicitly say that god is three beings in one. It is read into by people who think that is the case.

 

The "trinity" in my opinion is a reference to the three tabernacles referenced in Matthew 17:4, Mark 9;5, and Luke 9:33 in which Peter says "...if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias."   Those three tabernacles represent the Torah (God the Father), New Testatment (God the Son)  and  Quran (God the holy Spirit) and that these three are one as represented in 1 John 5:7, " For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

 

Since you are mentioning the Quran, I suspect that you are someone who is possibly Muslim. Or at least subscribes to the tenets of Islam. No christian would readily refer to the Quran as being the word of the Holy Spirit. 

[Orbit]

 

Well, your profile says you believe in the Holy Ghost. So what are you? Or is it a secret? A muslim?

I consider myself an American.

 

I consider you a troll.

[mymistake]

 

The "trinity" in my opinion is a reference to the three tabernacles referenced in Matthew 17:4, Mark 9;5, and Luke 9:33 in which Peter says "...if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias."   Those three tabernacles represent the Torah (God the Father), New Testatment (God the Son)  and  Quran (God the holy Spirit) and that these three are one as represented in 1 John 5:7, " For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

 

 

Now that is different.  Interesting.

 

 

 

I love the way you presume that I am a Christian.  

 

Christians are very common.  I see that your views are not common, at least not around here.  So what would you call your religion relative to the major established religions?

 

What is the living universe and how does one believe in Jesus without being a Christian?

[miekko]

 

 

 

...

 

You mean like how most Christians believe 1 god + 1 god + 1 god = 1 god?

If I was not born of the Spirit and the Word, I might take offense that that insinuation; but who woulda thunk that water could be solid, liquid or gas, but in whatever form is still water. Reminds me of Psalms 23:2

 

 

 

Ah, yes, the "My religion asserts that my God is actually a Trinity composed of God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit and the Trinity is just like water - solid, liquid and gas" canard.

 

That's such a compelling and profound analogy.  Spot on.  Without refutation.

 

Let's look at it further:

 

1)  Water cannot exist in as solid, liquid and gas at the same time and in the same place.  Accordingly, God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost cannot exist at the same time in the same place.  

 

2)  Once in one state (e.g., solid), water cannot change into another state (e.g., liquid) without an external force being applied (i.e., heat).   Accordingly, God cannot turn into Jesus (or to the Holy Ghost) unless an external force allows it to do so.  

 

3)  Depending on the external environment, water (H2O) might change into a wholly different molecule.  For example, if two water molecules are influenced with electrons, they can change into two hydrogen molecules and one oxygen molecule, and are no longer water, and which have different properties.  Accordingly, if electricity is applied to Jesus, he will split into two different things, "Je" and "sus", which will no longer have the same properties.

 

4)  Of course, plutonium (as well as cyanide, sulfuric acid, among others)  can each exist as a solid, liquid and gas.  Therefore, the Trinity is just like plutonium, cyanide, sulfuric acid and a host of other elements, molecules and compounds.

 

5)  Water can actually exist in a fourth state - plasma.  Accordingly, the Trinity of three is actually a Quadraplex of four.

 

I could go on, and on.

 

Yes, such a great analogy.

 

As to your being "born of the Spirit and the Word" (your words including the curious capitalizations), your attempt to claim a special frame/position of reference and/or special knowledge is more accurately perceived as mere narcissism.

 

You do realize analogies and metaphors never are supposed to go all the way? 5) is complete irrelevant, since the point of the trinity<>water/ice/vaper metaphor doesn't have to do with the number per se, but with how a thing can have seemingly different properties in different conditions. (Of course, funnily enough it's a metaphor that violates the teachings about the trinity that the ancient church councils decided - thus any Catholic, Lutheran or Anglican who accepts it is essentially a heretic)

 

1), 2 ), 3 ) and 4) are irreevant for similar reasons - your objections fail to realize that analogies are just that - analogies.

 

Says you.

 

Look, think a bit about what metaphors and analogies are. They're ways to describe something in terms of something else in order to help understanding - they are not a way of saying that something in fact is exactly like something else. Your reasoning fails to realize this and assumes that 'if the trinity is anything like water, there must be a fourth state because water has a fourth state'.

 

(Also, the reason water, and not - say - quicksilver or methane or titanium - is used for that particular analogy is pretty obvious: everyone in the western world has seen water in three different forms, few have seen helium or pure oxygen or lead in three forms) 

 

Look, I don't think the trinity makes sense, and I don't think God exists; what I do think is that we should be careful to use valid reasoning when arguing against Christianity.

[mymistake]

 

 

Look, think a bit about what metaphors and analogies are. They're ways to describe something in terms of something else in order to help understanding - they are not a way of saying that something in fact is exactly like something else. Your reasoning fails to realize this and assumes that 'if the trinity is anything like water, there must be a fourth state because water has a fourth state'.

 

(Also, the reason water, and not - say - quicksilver or methane or titanium - is used for that particular analogy is pretty obvious: everyone in the western world has seen water in three different forms, few have seen helium or pure oxygen or lead in three forms) 

 

Look, I don't think the trinity makes sense, and I don't think God exists; what I do think is that we should be careful to use valid reasoning when arguing against Christianity.

 

 

 

Dude, the analogy fails at every level.  Theists compare water to their imaginary friend.  It simply doesn't work.  Not in any way you look at it.  Trinity is illogical and undefined.  Look it up.  The people who invented it pass it off as a mystery. Water has real properties but it is nothing like It is three divine persons who are all the same god.  Trinity clearly was a way to cheat and bring polytheism into a tradition founded upon monotheism.

[Fernweh]

 

Well, your profile says you believe in the Holy Ghost. So what are you? Or is it a secret? A muslim?

I consider myself an American.

 

 

 

Let me guess: You believe all current churches are apostate and you have a special revelation?

[miekko]

 

 

 

Look, think a bit about what metaphors and analogies are. They're ways to describe something in terms of something else in order to help understanding - they are not a way of saying that something in fact is exactly like something else. Your reasoning fails to realize this and assumes that 'if the trinity is anything like water, there must be a fourth state because water has a fourth state'.

 

(Also, the reason water, and not - say - quicksilver or methane or titanium - is used for that particular analogy is pretty obvious: everyone in the western world has seen water in three different forms, few have seen helium or pure oxygen or lead in three forms) 

 

Look, I don't think the trinity makes sense, and I don't think God exists; what I do think is that we should be careful to use valid reasoning when arguing against Christianity.

 

 

 

Dude, the analogy fails at every level.  Theists compare water to their imaginary friend.  It simply doesn't work.  Not in any way you look at it.  Trinity is illogical and undefined.  Look it up.  The people who invented it pass it off as a mystery. Water has real properties but it is nothing like It is three divine persons who are all the same god.  Trinity clearly was a way to cheat and bring polytheism into a tradition founded upon monotheism.

 

By your approach, every fucking analogy ever fails. Seriously, let's consider this analogy: "Life is like a box of chocolates." No, it's not: life is not made of cardboard, nor is it made in order to contain sweets made of ground-up roasted beans from a certain Mesoamerican tree, sugar, possibly milk and some other ingredients. Life is not in the shape of a parallelepiped in almost any geometrical sense (topologically it might be, though), nor is it stored on shelves in a supermarket for consumers to buy for their loved ones. 

 

You don't need to point out to me that the trinity is illogical - I hold it to be a laughable piece of stupidity! - but the analogy is not a bad analogy even then. Nothing about the analogy itself is all that flawed, it's just that you so strongly wish to point and laugh at anything Christians ever say regarding their religion that you go and decide to label a perfectly acceptable metaphor as a failure. If you'd apply this reasoning to every analogy you hear, you'd point and laugh at every author ever. 

 

That's both silly and stupid. Besides, "look it up" is pretty goddamn unjustified in this context as I already fucking have given some pretty clear hints at me actually understanding these topics to some extent - all you have given is unjustified criticism of stuff you think you understand more well than you do. Apparently, you don't get analogies at all.

[Orbit]

 

 

 

 

Look, think a bit about what metaphors and analogies are. They're ways to describe something in terms of something else in order to help understanding - they are not a way of saying that something in fact is exactly like something else. Your reasoning fails to realize this and assumes that 'if the trinity is anything like water, there must be a fourth state because water has a fourth state'.

 

(Also, the reason water, and not - say - quicksilver or methane or titanium - is used for that particular analogy is pretty obvious: everyone in the western world has seen water in three different forms, few have seen helium or pure oxygen or lead in three forms) 

 

Look, I don't think the trinity makes sense, and I don't think God exists; what I do think is that we should be careful to use valid reasoning when arguing against Christianity.

 

 

 

Dude, the analogy fails at every level.  Theists compare water to their imaginary friend.  It simply doesn't work.  Not in any way you look at it.  Trinity is illogical and undefined.  Look it up.  The people who invented it pass it off as a mystery. Water has real properties but it is nothing like It is three divine persons who are all the same god.  Trinity clearly was a way to cheat and bring polytheism into a tradition founded upon monotheism.

 

By your approach, every fucking analogy ever fails. Seriously, let's consider this analogy: "Life is like a box of chocolates." No, it's not: life is not made of cardboard, nor is it made in order to contain sweets made of ground-up roasted beans from a certain Mesoamerican tree, sugar, possibly milk and some other ingredients. Life is not in the shape of a parallelepiped in almost any geometrical sense (topologically it might be, though), nor is it stored on shelves in a supermarket for consumers to buy for their loved ones. 

 

You don't need to point out to me that the trinity is illogical - I hold it to be a laughable piece of stupidity! - but the analogy is not a bad analogy even then. Nothing about the analogy itself is all that flawed, it's just that you so strongly wish to point and laugh at anything Christians ever say regarding their religion that you go and decide to label a perfectly acceptable metaphor as a failure. If you'd apply this reasoning to every analogy you hear, you'd point and laugh at every author ever. 

 

That's both silly and stupid. Besides, "look it up" is pretty goddamn unjustified in this context as I already fucking have given some pretty clear hints at me actually understanding these topics to some extent - all you have given is unjustified criticism of stuff you think you understand more well than you do. Apparently, you don't get analogies at all.

 

I think mm has a good point, though, that the trinity was a concession to local polytheisms.

[mymistake]

 

 

 

 

Look, think a bit about what metaphors and analogies are. They're ways to describe something in terms of something else in order to help understanding - they are not a way of saying that something in fact is exactly like something else. Your reasoning fails to realize this and assumes that 'if the trinity is anything like water, there must be a fourth state because water has a fourth state'.

 

(Also, the reason water, and not - say - quicksilver or methane or titanium - is used for that particular analogy is pretty obvious: everyone in the western world has seen water in three different forms, few have seen helium or pure oxygen or lead in three forms) 

 

Look, I don't think the trinity makes sense, and I don't think God exists; what I do think is that we should be careful to use valid reasoning when arguing against Christianity.

 

 

 

Dude, the analogy fails at every level.  Theists compare water to their imaginary friend.  It simply doesn't work.  Not in any way you look at it.  Trinity is illogical and undefined.  Look it up.  The people who invented it pass it off as a mystery. Water has real properties but it is nothing like It is three divine persons who are all the same god.  Trinity clearly was a way to cheat and bring polytheism into a tradition founded upon monotheism.

 

By your approach, every fucking analogy ever fails.

 

That right there is a strawman fallacy.

 

 

Nothing about the analogy itself is all that flawed, it's just that you so strongly wish to point and laugh at anything Christians ever say regarding their religion that you go and decide to label a perfectly acceptable metaphor as a failure. 

 

Wrong.  Modalism was declared to be a heresy by Christianity.  Thus a modalistic analogy is deeply flawed.  There is no need for you to resort to ad hominem fallacies.  They do not help your argument.

 

 

That's both silly and stupid. Besides, "look it up" is pretty goddamn unjustified in this context as I already fucking have given some pretty clear hints at me actually understanding these topics to some extent - all you have given is unjustified criticism of stuff you think you understand more well than you do. Apparently, you don't get analogies at all.

 

This isn't about me.  If you think water is an apt analogy for the Trinity you are welcome to make a case for it but could we do without the childish behavior?  Thank you.

[Joshpantera]

The analogy was stupid. 

 

 

"Duh, ok Rocky, I see it now. Water can exist in 3 phases, solid, liquid, and vapor. 3 things, but all the same thing, water. So that's like the supernatural, immaterial, non-phase transitioning trinity of the Christian mythology."

 

Oh yeah, using material substance as an analogy for the immaterial world of imagination is just Jim Dandy, no logical flaws there.  

[sdelsolray]

There are differences between a good analogy and a poor analogy, and there are differences between a poor analogy and a non sequitur.

 

Apparently, identifying those differences offends the analog police.