Question about the Trinity

[GWH]

I disagree strongly. Dimensions are purely physical, and as such, physical/material space is encompassed in the first three. Time is usually (but not always) counted as the fourth dimension (and is also physical). The spirit realm, not being physical, is not one of the dimensions.


The creation is not anything "manifesting God"; it is the result of God's creative words. Jesus' incarnation is God's appearance within creation as a physical, mortal being.


While the Flatland analogy is useful for illustrating both higher dimensions and the spiritual realm, it fails (as all analogies do) to represent wholly and accurately the nature of the Trinity.


Here we agree: while some measure of understanding is necessary, belief where understanding fails is an appropriate response to God.

The spirit realm, not being physical, is not one of the spiritual dimensions.

If Jesus' incarnation is God's appearance within creation as a physical, mortal being, then there is no good reason to think creation is not God's appearance as physical, material things.

While the Flatland analogy is useful for illustrating both higher dimensions and the spiritual realm, it fails (as all analogies do) to represent wholly and accurately the nature of the Trinity, which is why "we may have trouble understanding the concept of Trinity fully from a human point of view".

IOW, we agree while some measure of understanding is necessary, belief where fallible understanding fails is an appropriate response to God.

 

[Dino246]

The spirit realm, not being physical, is not one of the spiritual dimensions.

Would you care to rethink that sentence?

If Jesus' incarnation is God's appearance within creation as a physical, mortal being, then there is no good reason to think creation is not God's appearance as physical, material things.

Yes, there is a good reason: ?In the beginning, God created...." That strongly implies that God existed prior to and outside of the creation. Nowhere does Scripture say that God made creation as an extension of Himself, nor as an image of Himself. It does say that man is made in the image of God, but not that the rest of creation is.

IOW, we agree while some measure of understanding is necessary, belief where fallible understanding fails is an appropriate response to God.

Exactly.

 

[GWH]

Would you care to rethink that sentence?


Yes, there is a good reason: ?In the beginning, God created...." That strongly implies that God existed prior to and outside of the creation. Nowhere does Scripture say that God made creation as an extension of Himself, nor as an image of Himself. It does say that man is made in the image of God, but not that the rest of creation is.


Exactly.

Oops! Yes, can't blame it on the wassail either! :^)

The spirit realm, not being physical, is not one of the physical dimensions.

Yes, nor does it say creation exists where God is not present.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

I think God is One Being who is everywhere and who relates to humanity as 3 persons + 1 impersonal creation.

God is everywhere, but God, the father, isn't except through his spirit and word, but those are still God

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

Well, as a former English teacher IMO you yourself are reading out of the text and semantics what you yourself don't want to see, but why you don't want to see the orthodox doctrine of God's omnipresence sustaining creation is beyond me!
)

That's what exegesis is, which is the proper hermeneutical method. Eisegesis is reading what you want to see into the text, a big no-no

God is omnipresent through his spirit and word

 

[GWH]

That's what exegesis is, which is the proper hermeneutical method. Eisegesis is reading what you want to see into the text, a big no-no

God is omnipresent through his spirit and word

So I guess what you do is exogesis. Interpreting the OT in light of the Gospel as the NT authors did and correctly applying our God-given reasoning ability to believe the Scriptures I cited teach God's omnipresence are NOT eisegesis.