However, I'll keep an eye out to see if you try bullying anyone else using pseudo-scientific claims and I'll call you on them.

Oh, please do! Anytime. I'm sure you'll try again, probably again with fire and sword, and I'll continue to keep an eye out for your inaccurate analogies and toddler arithmetic. Next time state your case instead of waving me to authority, too.

Good day!

the meaning wasn't sarcasm, as in, "Do these people at DA really believe in a biological trinity?" It was an honest question - asking if there was anybody who actually does argue the trinity as three biological people.

And your quote in context:

I don't know much about theology, but I'm pretty sure conventional ideas of the trinity did not assume 3 biological bodies. Do people really posit that the trinity = 3 biological beings? Am I missing something, here?

Did you know that you're likely to trip when backpedaling? For asking an honest question, you sure went out of your way to defeat it before asking, particularly for someone who brought up the subject. Looks like you were angling for a strawman the whole way along - unless you don't happen to believe in souls, of course... which would pretty much take your "conventional ideas of the trinity" bullshit and throw it in the trash, not that you haven't already done so.

As for finding my quote and time stamping it, that will be left as an exercise for your research skills. It might help if you ever decide to start learning the subject matter before citing it in a discussion.

Now, you have taken enough of my time and there is very little I can see you contributing to this or any discussion. However, I'll keep an eye out to see if you try bullying anyone else using pseudo-scientific claims and I'll call you on them. Good day.

...the doctrine of the Trinity was developed at ecumenical councils... The councils used the word Person, but did not mean at all to imply physical bodies. It was more a term of identity.

Thank you. As for,

It is not elaborated upon in the Bible.

Depends what you mean by 'elaborated upon' but I grant that the Bible does not contain literal references to any trinity. However, that the trinity is not elaborated upon in the Bible is an inaccurate statement, IMO.

Kaltrosomos,

You said,

Although I meant the first, I'm curious how you'd answer both possibilities.

In short, I can only speculate. If what the trinity purports to describe does not exist, but the Bible and the doctrine itself did, the world would probably be pretty much the same as it is now, with a bunch of gasbags like us all running around pontificating one way or the other. However, if the doctrine itself did not exist, well, that would at least mean one less conversation to have at DA.

2-D Man,

You said,

(cl is) the person who brought up biology. I have already explained to (cl) how it was unnecessary. (paren. mine)

When, where, in what context, and with timestamps, please.

You also say,

(cl) persist(s) that anyone here besides (cl) is talking about biology. We are not. (cl) mocks our position on biology. Strawman. (paren. mine)

I've never thought anyone here was talking about biology, with the possible exception of you and your lame analogy. Who was the one who posited himself and his biological father as an analogy for the trinity? Granted you meant for me to interpret it in some 'harmonic state,' but you still posit an analogy with 2 biological beings. For me, that's when biology entered (re-entered) the discussion. I've been arguing for the trinity in a non-biological sense throughout the conversation.

To clarify, when I asked Brad the original question,

Do people really posit that the trinity = 3 biological beings?

the meaning wasn't sarcasm, as in, "Do these people at DA really believe in a biological trinity?" It was an honest question - asking if there was anybody who actually does argue the trinity as three biological people.

You claim I'm talking about biology, and that I'm assuming everyone else is too. But I'm not, and I haven't assumed such.

That is a strawman. If you can demonstrate how it is not, explain.

how is my question to Brad a strawman?

You are the person who brought up biology. I have already explained to you how it was unnecessary. You persist in your position that anyone here besides you is talking about biology. We are not. You mock our position on biology. Strawman.

Going with the conventional definition that a strawman argument occurs when a debater rebuts a claim his opponent does not actually make, how is my question to Brad a strawman?

Explain.

2-D Man,You should have used the robotic ghost of Xmas past from the future.

I do have a certain affinity for taco pie....

Do people really posit that the trinity = 3 biological beings?

Who's strawmanning?

Am I missing something, here?

Yeah. It's called reading comprehension.

Although I meant the first, I'm curious how you'd answer both possibilities.

Mathew Wilder's comments about the necessity for sound definitions comes back to mind.

Then define your terms! If you are positing that some doctrine called the "trinity" makes sense, then define the terms that you are putting forth so that we can evaluate them. When you don't do that, we will use the normal meanings of words or the meanings that most Xians use and you will simply sit back and deflect all criticism with a smug, "Well, that's not what I believe," without ever actually telling us what it is that you do believe.

Except that Jesus was supposedly taken bodily up into heaven, so it's not really clear how that works. LOL As if any of it is!

I have no idea what a Person or substance is (as I have already said)!

If you deny this, as we have said, your Trinitarian doctrine is not the one of most Christians, then.

@ OMGF:

2-D Man,You should have used the robotic ghost of Xmas past from the future.

I LOVE that episode!

...which affirms that God REALLY is Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

IMO, nothing I've said conflicts with this. When I say to Steve Bowen that these are just the best terms the believer might use to describe, that doesn't mean that God is not *actually* those things..

Brad,

Oh, It seems you aren't defending "the" doctrine of the trinity ("One God in three persons"), but your own version where the F,S,&HS were not "persons."

Mathew Wilder's comments about the necessity for sound definitions comes back to mind. Again, this why I don't use 'persons.' Nowhere in scripture does it contain anything even remotely close to 'God is one god in three persons,' and where in the Bible is it implied the Holy Spirit is embodied? So obviously, IMO, that trinity doctrine entails three biological beings is the source of much of its confusion.

3 'personages' or 'personalities' or 'aspects' - not 3 bodies. I don't know much about theology, but I'm pretty sure conventional ideas of the trinity did not assume 3 biological bodies. Do people really posit that the trinity = 3 biological beings? Am I missing something, here? I really don't have that much interest in theology, even though 2-D Man called that a lie.

I reject the description of the trinity as three 'persons' precisely because it implies bodies, and invites confusion.

In the case of the trinity, we have a different class of entity from the start, correct?

Oh. It seems you aren't defending "the" doctrine of the trinity ("One God in three persons"), but your own version where the F,S,&HS were not "persons."

Carry on then.