Who 'died' at the cross? The Son or The Trinity?

Who 'died' at the cross? The Son or The Trinity?

Jesus

who was the physical manidestation of the Son

Davelaw wrote:Jesus

who was the physical manidestation of the Son

But so it was not The Trinity?

the DEATH of the Son did not kill God

Davelaw wrote:the DEATH of the Son did not kill God

God? You mean the Trinity? Or what is God in this case?

the Trinity would be the whole of God

the Divine being did not cease to exist with the Death of Jesus

Davelaw wrote:the Trinity would be the whole of God

the Divine being did not cease to exist with the Death of Jesus

So Jesus was not the whole of God?

Celsus wrote:

Davelaw wrote:the Trinity would be the whole of God

the Divine being did not cease to exist with the Death of Jesus

So Jesus was not the whole of God?

asked and answered

now you are just repeating yourself

Davelaw wrote:

Celsus wrote:

Davelaw wrote:the Trinity would be the whole of God

the Divine being did not cease to exist with the Death of Jesus

So Jesus was not the whole of God?

asked and answered

now you are just repeating yourself

No, you're just weaseling again.

If the Trinity did not die at the cross, but Jesus did, then Jesus does not equate to the Trinity, agreed?

He's the human manifestation of one part of the Trinity

Davelaw wrote:He's the human manifestation of one part of the Trinity

So the Trinity is composed of parts?

three by definition

Davelaw wrote:three by definition

The Godhead is composed of three parts/entities?

Celsus wrote:

Davelaw wrote:three by definition

The Godhead is composed of three parts/entities?

you do speak English? Trinity means three in one

but then again; so does Trimurti

the Hindu deity

Davelaw wrote:

Celsus wrote:

Davelaw wrote:three by definition

The Godhead is composed of three parts/entities?

you do speak English? Trinity means three in one

So let me see if I get this read:

There is one Godhead and this Godhead is made up of parts: The Son, The Father and The Spirit.

But that leads to the logical conclusion that The Son cannot equate to the Godhead because a PART of something cannot be equal to the WHOLE.

Davelaw wrote:but then again; so does Trimurti

the Hindu deity

Maybe you should rather become a Hindu than a Christian then ... you seem to be ok with multiple Gods (or parts of God).

Celsus wrote:

Davelaw wrote:

Celsus wrote:

Davelaw wrote:three by definition

The Godhead is composed of three parts/entities?

you do speak English? Trinity means three in one

So let me see if I get this read:

There is one Godhead and this Godhead is made up of parts: The Son, The Father and The Spirit.

But that leads to the logical conclusion that The Son cannot equate to the Godhead because a PART of something cannot be equal to the WHOLE.

try Faith then

Davelaw wrote:

Celsus wrote:

Davelaw wrote:

Celsus wrote:

Davelaw wrote:three by definition

The Godhead is composed of three parts/entities?

you do speak English? Trinity means three in one

So let me see if I get this read:

There is one Godhead and this Godhead is made up of parts: The Son, The Father and The Spirit.

But that leads to the logical conclusion that The Son cannot equate to the Godhead because a PART of something cannot be equal to the WHOLE.

try Faith then

Faith in what? That illogical statements can be true despite them being against logic?

logic only gets you so far

there is more to universe than can be observed, measured or analysized

Davelaw wrote:logic only gets you so far

there is more to universe than can be observed, measured or analysized

Says who? What's the evidence for this?

And how does this prove that illogical statements could be true!?

Don't you realize to what EXTREME POSITIONS and CLAIMS you have to go to uphold your illusion?? This is cognitive dissonance at its best ...

giving something a label does not make it true

what does it matter to you anyway? I'm certainly not trying convert you

all that matters it has meaning and value for me

Davelaw wrote:giving something a label does not make it true

what does it matter to you anyway? I'm certainly not trying convert you

all that matters it has meaning and value for me

I'm just fascinated to what extremes otherwise rational people are ready to go to justify and defend their irrational and illogical beliefs.

I'm glad it has meaning and value for you (it can't for me though because of the illogical premise) but why are you here then? Why are you trying to defend an impossible position? Why not simply admit that you can't rationally and logically explain it but that this doesn't matter to you?

because I don't have court today and have time on my hands

Celsus wrote:

Davelaw wrote:giving something a label does not make it true

what does it matter to you anyway? I'm certainly not trying convert you

all that matters it has meaning and value for me

I'm just fascinated to what extremes otherwise rational people are ready to go to justify and defend their irrational and illogical beliefs.

I'm glad it has meaning and value for you (it can't for me though because of the illogical premise) but why are you here then? Why are you trying to defend an impossible position? Why not simply admit that you can't rationally and logically explain it but that this doesn't matter to you?

and you should have asked that question from the beginning

my belief system predates me- i have bought into the the belief system of my parents, community and their ancestors i may relationize on the edges to make it more palatable to me-but i'm not going to divorce myslef from the community around me- so I have accepted that which came before even though i can NOT explain all of it or even justify all of it