How many self’s is God himself?

Matthias said:
To the best of my knowledge, there currently aren’t any Catholics posting on the forum. (I hope that will change soon.)

In their absence, I’m posting an excerpt from the writings of a Catholic.

”The doctrine of the Trinity tells us that there is one God, i.e., one infinite mind and will, but that this one and the same Mind and Will is equally and without confusion ‘operated‘ by three Agents, three Selves, three ‘I’s.“

Library : How the Truth of the Trinity Makes Sense of Everything

How the Truth of the Trinity Makes Sense of Everything Roy Abraham Varghese explains how the doctrine of the Trinity sheds light on the larger body of Church teaching.
www.catholicculture.org www.catholicculture.org

This Catholic writer tells us plainly that the Trinity is three Selves.

I was raised Southern Baptist. I was taught by the Church that the Trinity is one Self.

God himself. God himselves?
Click to expand...
Addressing the OP, and haven't read all the post. one thing the web site struck me with is this statement, "But, to repeat, it is not logically a contradiction because we are not saying there are three gods who are one god or three persons who are one person. We're only saying that the one infinite-eternal mind and will are shared equally and indivisibly by three Subjects."

if three "Subject" .... SHARE one infinite-eternal mind, why then did the Lord Jesus say, not my will but your will. is not the will is of the MIND? if SHARED, not the same ...... "WILL?", and why the Lord Jesus say, "I do nothing of myself?" is not the ONE MIND "SHARED". should it not say the same thing?

and lastly, if the Lord Jesus is of the "SAME" one Mind, how come he don't know his return date? only the Father knows, but is not this a "EQUALLY SHARED ..... ETERNAL MIND?" according to the web site.

now there is an answer to all these questions, but a "EQUALLY SHARED MIND" is not the answer.

101G.
 
God alone can not be seen by anyone... (John 1:18)

God as a man, is God being revealed as a man, in the soul of the Son.

God as an angel, is God being revealed as an angel, in the spirit of the Holy Spirit.

Man is soul. The Son is two natures in union. = God and man/soul in union.

Angels are spirit. The Holy Spirit is two natures in union. = God and angel/spirit in union.

On the other hand..

God the Father without any second nature in union? Can not be perceived by men nor angels.
 
GeneZ said:
God alone can not be seen by anyone... (John 1:18)

God as a man, is God being revealed as a man, in the soul of the Son.

God as an angel, is God being revealed as an angel, in the spirit of the Holy Spirit.

Man is soul. The Son is two natures in union. = God and man/soul in union.

Angels are spirit. The Holy Spirit is two natures in union. = God and angel/spirit in union.

On the other hand..

God the Father without any second nature in union? Can not be perceived by men nor angels.
Click to expand...
most of this... 99% is anti Christ. John 6:46 "Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father." John 14:7 "If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him." John 14:8 "Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us." John 14:9 "Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?"

101G.
 
Matthias said:
A nun (Sr. Mary Joseph Calore, SSCJ) posted the following analogy on X this afternoon.


”... when GOD wanted to create man He turned to himself. …”

When I hear the word “himself,” I think of a single self.

God, which surely the nun believes is the Trinity, turned to himself.

When scripture speaks about Jesus himself, scripture is speaking about only one person, not three persons. Jesus is a single self.

When scripture speaks about God himself, how many self’s is scripture speaking about?

Speaking as a Jewish monotheist, my God (which isn’t the Trinity) is a single self, and that single self isn’t Jesus.

So, I’d like to ask trinitarians: How many self’s is the Trinity?
Click to expand...
Genesis is the Foundation of Truth

If you carefully read Genesis you will see that Elohim is a plural Unity, from the very beginning.

This plurality of Elohim is verified and officiated by Elohim 'Himself' in Exodus.

Finally, the Plurality of Elohim is confirmed in the Gospel/Isaiah/Acts/Revelation

Since Elohim is ONE Elohim(plural) the Scriptures speak as ONE and not as many individual elohim/gods.

This ONE True Eternal Elohim explains Himself most vividly in the Gospel of John.
 
Matthias said:
A nun (Sr. Mary Joseph Calore, SSCJ) posted the following analogy on X this afternoon.


”... when GOD wanted to create man He turned to himself. …”

When I hear the word “himself,” I think of a single self.

God, which surely the nun believes is the Trinity, turned to himself.

When scripture speaks about Jesus himself, scripture is speaking about only one person, not three persons. Jesus is a single self.

When scripture speaks about God himself, how many self’s is scripture speaking about?

Speaking as a Jewish monotheist, my God (which isn’t the Trinity) is a single self, and that single self isn’t Jesus.

So, I’d like to ask trinitarians: How many self’s is the Trinity?
Click to expand...
Scripture declare THREE PERSONS of the Godhead within JESUS
 
I go by the teaching of the New Testament in which Jesus is revealed as the Eternal Creator and not a created being. Jesus is God.

IN THE beginning [before all time] was the Word (Christ), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God Himself.
2 He was present originally with God.
3 All things were made and came into existence through Him; and without Him was not even one thing made that has come into being.
4 In Him was Life, and the Life was the Light of men.
John 1:1–4

6 For to us a Child is born, to us a Son is given; and the government shall be upon His shoulder, and His name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father [of Eternity], Prince of Peace.
Isaiah 9:6
 
Matthias said:
A nun (Sr. Mary Joseph Calore, SSCJ) posted the following analogy on X this afternoon.


”... when GOD wanted to create man He turned to himself. …”

When I hear the word “himself,” I think of a single self.

God, which surely the nun believes is the Trinity, turned to himself.

When scripture speaks about Jesus himself, scripture is speaking about only one person, not three persons. Jesus is a single self.

When scripture speaks about God himself, how many self’s is scripture speaking about?

Speaking as a Jewish monotheist, my God (which isn’t the Trinity) is a single self, and that single self isn’t Jesus.

So, I’d like to ask trinitarians: How many self’s is the Trinity?
Click to expand...
Word games. God is ONE. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Simple as that.
 
Matthias said:
A nun (Sr. Mary Joseph Calore, SSCJ) posted the following analogy on X this afternoon.


”... when GOD wanted to create man He turned to himself. …”

When I hear the word “himself,” I think of a single self.

God, which surely the nun believes is the Trinity, turned to himself.

When scripture speaks about Jesus himself, scripture is speaking about only one person, not three persons. Jesus is a single self.

When scripture speaks about God himself, how many self’s is scripture speaking about?

Speaking as a Jewish monotheist, my God (which isn’t the Trinity) is a single self, and that single self isn’t Jesus.

So, I’d like to ask trinitarians: How many self’s is the Trinity?
Click to expand...
Dizerner is correct...the word "himself" is simply a reflexive pronoun, i.e. a pronoun that indicating the the action of the verb refers to the subject or affects the subject. This is not used as a metaphysical or ontological term. However, the term "self" is a much better term to use than the ambiguous phrase I hate to see with regard to the Trinity which is, "center of consciousness." Here is a simple understanding of "self,":

The self, the I, is recognized in every act of intelligence as the subject to which that act belongs. It is I that perceive, I that imagine, I that remember, I that attend, I that compare, I that feel, I that will, I that am conscious. Sir W. Hamilton. (Webster's 1913)

A person, metaphysically, is necessarily a "self" regardless of what some Neo-Trinitarian geeks may say. Now the difference in the Trinity is this:

"For the constitution of a person it is required that a reality be subsistent and absolutely distinct, i.e. incommunicable. The three Divine realities are relations, each identified with the Divine Essence. A finite relation has reality only in so far as it is an accident; it has the reality of inherence. The Divine relations, however, are in the nature not by inherence but by identity. The reality they have, therefore, is not that of an accident, but that of a subsistence. They are one with ipsum esse subsistens. Again every relation, by its very nature, implies opposition and so distinction. In the finite relation this distinction is between subject and term. In the infinite relations there is no subject as distinct from the relation itself; the Paternity is the Father--and no term as distinct from the opposing relation; the Filiation is the Son. The Divine realities are therefore distinct and mutually incommunicable through this relative opposition; they are subsistent as being identified with the subsistence of the Godhead, i.e. they are persons." Catholic Encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Matthias, to be honest I would also say that if one wants to know and understand the Historic Doctrines of the Trinity and Chalcedon, Roman Catholic Dogma will be the most accurate (not every RC writer, there is a big difference) as it cannot be changed...once it is made dogma it is forever unlike everyone else. Evangelicals are an absolute mess on the doctrines of the Trinity and Chalcedon...even the Baptists...even in seminaries! Not all Baptists, but many. Since you are wondering I was raised Catholic and had to know a great deal of this by the time I was 13, and once I was 18 I guess I claimed the identity of an Evangelical...and now I'm a...well...I guess I'm a historic Christian. If there are a dozen typos in this post I apologize but I must run (and my fingers get ahead of my brain so its dangerous).

QUICK ADDITION: I almost forgot...there are 3 selfs and 1 mind in God.

TheLayman
 
Last edited:
TheLayman said:
Dizerner is correct...the word "himself" is simply a reflexive pronoun, i.e. a pronoun that indicating the the action of the verb refers to the subject or affects the subject. This is not used as a metaphysical or ontological term. However, the term "self" is a much better term to use than the ambiguous phrase I hate to see with regard to the Trinity which is, "center of consciousness." Here is a simple understanding of "self,":

The self, the I, is recognized in every act of intelligence as the subject to which that act belongs. It is I that perceive, I that imagine, I that remember, I that attend, I that compare, I that feel, I that will, I that am conscious. Sir W. Hamilton. (Webster's 1913)

A person, metaphysically, is necessarily a "self" regardless of what some Neo-Trinitarian geeks may say. Now the difference in the Trinity is this:



Matthias, to be honest I would also say that if one wants to know and understand the Historic Doctrines of the Trinity and Chalcedon, Roman Catholic Dogma will be the most accurate (not every RC writer, there is a big difference) as it cannot be changed...once it is made dogma it is forever unlike everyone else. Evangelicals are an absolute mess on the doctrines of the Trinity and Chalcedon...even the Baptists...even in seminaries! Not all Baptists, but many. Since you are wondering I was raised Catholic and had to know a great deal of this by the time I was 13, and once I was 18 I guess I claimed the identity of an Evangelical...and now I'm a...well...I guess I'm a historic Christian. If there are a dozen typos in this post I apologize but I must run (and my fingers get ahead of my brain so its dangerous).

QUICK ADDITION: I almost forgot...there are 3 selfs and 1 mind in God.

TheLayman
Click to expand...
Ditto well said brother
 
TheLayman said:
Dizerner is correct...the word "himself" is simply a reflexive pronoun, i.e. a pronoun that indicating the the action of the verb refers to the subject or affects the subject. This is not used as a metaphysical or ontological term. However, the term "self" is a much better term to use than the ambiguous phrase I hate to see with regard to the Trinity which is, "center of consciousness." Here is a simple understanding of "self,":

The self, the I, is recognized in every act of intelligence as the subject to which that act belongs. It is I that perceive, I that imagine, I that remember, I that attend, I that compare, I that feel, I that will, I that am conscious. Sir W. Hamilton. (Webster's 1913)

A person, metaphysically, is necessarily a "self" regardless of what some Neo-Trinitarian geeks may say. Now the difference in the Trinity is this:



Matthias, to be honest I would also say that if one wants to know and understand the Historic Doctrines of the Trinity and Chalcedon, Roman Catholic Dogma will be the most accurate (not every RC writer, there is a big difference) as it cannot be changed...once it is made dogma it is forever unlike everyone else. Evangelicals are an absolute mess on the doctrines of the Trinity and Chalcedon...even the Baptists...even in seminaries! Not all Baptists, but many. Since you are wondering I was raised Catholic and had to know a great deal of this by the time I was 13, and once I was 18 I guess I claimed the identity of an Evangelical...and now I'm a...well...I guess I'm a historic Christian. If there are a dozen typos in this post I apologize but I must run (and my fingers get ahead of my brain so its dangerous).

QUICK ADDITION: I almost forgot...there are 3 selfs and 1 mind in God.

TheLayman
Click to expand...
I'm not sure you will get an answer from the poster he has not been here for a while. Hopefully he has notifications turned on and he will get an alert that someone quoted him waiting for a response.
 
Matthias said:
A nun (Sr. Mary Joseph Calore, SSCJ) posted the following analogy on X this afternoon.


”... when GOD wanted to create man He turned to himself. …”

When I hear the word “himself,” I think of a single self.

God, which surely the nun believes is the Trinity, turned to himself.

When scripture speaks about Jesus himself, scripture is speaking about only one person, not three persons. Jesus is a single self.

When scripture speaks about God himself, how many self’s is scripture speaking about?

Speaking as a Jewish monotheist, my God (which isn’t the Trinity) is a single self, and that single self isn’t Jesus.

So, I’d like to ask trinitarians: How many self’s is the Trinity?
Click to expand...
Let's count:
1. FATHER
2. SON
3. HOLY SPIRIT

i count 3
 
GeneZ said:
God alone can not be seen by anyone... (John 1:18)

God as a man, is God being revealed as a man, in the soul of the Son.

God as an angel, is God being revealed as an angel, in the spirit of the Holy Spirit.

Man is soul. The Son is two natures in union. = God and man/soul in union.

Angels are spirit. The Holy Spirit is two natures in union. = God and angel/spirit in union.

On the other hand..

God the Father without any second nature in union? Can not be perceived by men nor angels.
Click to expand...
Yikes I don’t know where to begin with all the false teachings above. 👆
 
civic said:
Ditto well said brother
Click to expand...

You just paste this response so willy nilly.

I'm not trying to be disrespectful here, but there is not a man ON THIS PLANET that understands what any of this meant:

"For the constitution of a person it is required that a reality be subsistent and absolutely distinct, i.e. incommunicable. The three Divine realities are relations, each identified with the Divine Essence. A finite relation has reality only in so far as it is an accident; it has the reality of inherence. The Divine relations, however, are in the nature not by inherence but by identity. The reality they have, therefore, is not that of an accident, but that of a subsistence. They are one with ipsum esse subsistens. Again every relation, by its very nature, implies opposition and so distinction. In the finite relation this distinction is between subject and term. In the infinite relations there is no subject as distinct from the relation itself; the Paternity is the Father--and no term as distinct from the opposing relation; the Filiation is the Son. The Divine realities are therefore distinct and mutually incommunicable through this relative opposition; they are subsistent as being identified with the subsistence of the Godhead, i.e. they are persons."​
 
dizerner said:
You just paste this response so willy nilly.

I'm not trying to be disrespectful here, but there is not a man ON THIS PLANET that understands what any of this meant:

"For the constitution of a person it is required that a reality be subsistent and absolutely distinct, i.e. incommunicable. The three Divine realities are relations, each identified with the Divine Essence. A finite relation has reality only in so far as it is an accident; it has the reality of inherence. The Divine relations, however, are in the nature not by inherence but by identity. The reality they have, therefore, is not that of an accident, but that of a subsistence. They are one with ipsum esse subsistens. Again every relation, by its very nature, implies opposition and so distinction. In the finite relation this distinction is between subject and term. In the infinite relations there is no subject as distinct from the relation itself; the Paternity is the Father--and no term as distinct from the opposing relation; the Filiation is the Son. The Divine realities are therefore distinct and mutually incommunicable through this relative opposition; they are subsistent as being identified with the subsistence of the Godhead, i.e. they are persons."​
Click to expand...
I think it is one of those instances where the reasoner can produce an effect which seems remarkable to his fellow posters, because the latter has missed the one little point which is the basis of the deduction. Or it's just Willy Nilly, or Boogie Woogie. It's interesting, though elementary.
 
dizerner said:
You just paste this response so willy nilly.

I'm not trying to be disrespectful here, but there is not a man ON THIS PLANET that understands what any of this meant:

"For the constitution of a person it is required that a reality be subsistent and absolutely distinct, i.e. incommunicable. The three Divine realities are relations, each identified with the Divine Essence. A finite relation has reality only in so far as it is an accident; it has the reality of inherence. The Divine relations, however, are in the nature not by inherence but by identity. The reality they have, therefore, is not that of an accident, but that of a subsistence. They are one with ipsum esse subsistens. Again every relation, by its very nature, implies opposition and so distinction. In the finite relation this distinction is between subject and term. In the infinite relations there is no subject as distinct from the relation itself; the Paternity is the Father--and no term as distinct from the opposing relation; the Filiation is the Son. The Divine realities are therefore distinct and mutually incommunicable through this relative opposition; they are subsistent as being identified with the subsistence of the Godhead, i.e. they are persons."​
Click to expand...
lol the @TheLayman and I are probably the most conservative, orthodox , creedal trins here. He knows the doctrine of the Trinity and 2 natures in Christ more than most and I’ve learned plenty from him over the years.
 

Similar threads

civic
God is Love
2 3
Replies
56
Views
322
TomL
T
Rowan
The Trinity The Touchstone of Truth
26 27 28
Replies
551
Views
6K
101G
101G
Peterlag
Data on John 1:1
13 14 15
Replies
297
Views
2K
brightfame52
brightfame52
civic
God is Plural
16 17 18
Replies
350
Views
7K
MatthewG
M
MTMattie
YHWH
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
454
TomL
T
Back
Top Bottom