Original subtitles

It is the doctrine that God is, try personal.

It is not the self contradictory assertion that three gods are one god.

Nor again that three persons are one person. That's just iological nonsense.

Rather it is the claim that the one entity we call God comprises three persons.

That is no Iological than saying one geometrical figure we call a triangle.

Is comprised of three angles, three angles in one figure, three persons in one being.

Perhaps the best way to think of this is to say that in God, there are three centers of self consciousness.

I am a being with a single center of self conscious.

God is a being with three centers of self consciousness.

Each of these three persons is equal in glory and divinity.

But we call them Father, son and Holy Spirit because of the different roles they play in relation to us.

The father is the person who sends the son to earth.

The son is the person who takes a human nature and becomes incarnate, as Jesus of.

The Holy spirit is the person who stands in Christ s place until Christ.

Now all this doctor may seem strange.

Muslims, I think you ve got to admit that once it's properly stated, there's nothing rationally objectional about it. It is a.

Consistent doctrine and seems rationally unobjectional.

And all Shakespeare actually could say, here was it in a triangle. Each angle is not a triangle.

But according to the Doctor of the Trinity, each person is.

This is simply based on a misunderstanding, severe.

The ears in the statement, jesus is God is not an ears of identity.

It's not like saying, uh, cicero is Tully, where those are simply two different names of the same person and is of identity.

Rather, this isn't, is of predication. It's like saying the couch is red.

You don't mean that the couch is a color, you mean that the couch has the property of being red. Similarly, when he said Jesus is God the father is God.

The sun is God, that is to say that they are all divine, they all share the attributes of D-A. This is not an is of identity.

And unless you understand that, you're bound to be.

It is simply not the case that, according to the classic.

The godhead as a whole is identical to any one of the persons. It is very much like a trying.

Where you have one entity comprised of three angles, or one entity comprise to three persons.

And if that is the doctrine, then I ask you, what is rationally objectionable about that That is the doctrine I believe, and I see nothing rational, irration.