Is the trinity logically incoherent?
Is the trinity logically incoherent?
Anyone know of any theist who has explained this issue?
This video is a good introduction to the problem:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_WPuPdFsIg
Anyone know of any theist who has explained this issue?
This video is a good introduction to the problem:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_WPuPdFsIg
Comments (155)
Historically, the origin of the doctrine was an attempt by medieval (or earlier) theologians to reconcile the statements in the NT that could be read to imply that Jesus is separate from his 'father' and from the 'spirit', with the doctrine that there is only one god.
Somebody decided early on that the easy explanation - that the references are just to different manifestations of the one entity - must be rejected, and as a result they've had to struggle with it ever since.
I read somewhere that muslim scholars regard the doctrine as blasphemous because it suggests there is more than one god.
But then there are other difficult things to explain -- like how bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ, and why anyone would especially want bread and wine to be changed into flesh.
Then there is that star which guided the 3 wisemen to this alleged stable supposedly in Bethlehem: What happened to this exceptionally specific guiding light after the 3 wisemen arrived? Did the star just go out? Did it keep drifting to the west? Did it backtrack to where it started?
And let's not even get started on the virgin birth.
However, if one by faith believes in a god as the creator of all we can imagine. A trinity, a few miracles and even a virgin birth seems rather easy. If one by faith does not believe in such a god. Seems a tad redundant not to believe in the trinity
Can’t see how there is very much philosophy to discuss on this
The question is not on whether the doctrine of the Trinity is true, but on whether the doctrine is logically coherent; thus, the question is within the domain of philosophy.
One could, I suppose, articulate some theory of identity that isn't transitive and so maybe try and solve it that way (maybe? This is an idle thought). But this is way to much trouble just to salvage this tenet of a religion. There's little gained by going to all this trouble.
As I have argued on other threads, I know of no reason based argument that says we as humans have any basis at all to say anything about the nature of such a thing as God
What seems to the normal do loop is an atheist will take a theist claim that is solely based on faith, and argue it is not supported by reason.
The theist response to this should be duh.
Then there is no argument to be had. You're not articulating a viewpoint that can be defended at all. So why even talk about it ever, much less believe in it? After all, if I have no basis (Hah!) on which to point out the notion of the Trinity is incoherent then the Christian has no basis to say it's coherent. You wouldn't accept this kind of reasoning anywhere else.
I hold my point is both valid and important. Both theists and atheists make all kinds of propositions about the nature of god in their arguments. Yet I know of no rationale argument that supports we have the ability to make any such claim
If you know of one I would be truly interested in hearing it
The Christian is free to believe in the trinity as long as it is acknowledged that this is a belief based on faith, not fact or reason.
You have every right to say such a thing as the trinity in incoherent with human reason
And to that I say duh.
Define what God is. If this cannot be done then it's both pointless to believe in it and pointless to discuss it at all. If it can be defined - and many people do define the nature of God, from being omnipotent to being part of a Trinity - then that definition can be analyzed and criticized, as I did earlier.
Quoting Rank Amateur
That's all well and good, really it is. But then proselytizing must forever be acknowledged by its practioners as an attempt to appeal purely to the emotions of others (from fear of hell to desire of an eternal love) and not something where one really defends their faith. Rather, it's just defending the permissibility of having faith of some sort. And that's just a boring discussion IMO.
Again, why would you believe any claim whatsoever about God then? Why not simply move on to something you can make a rational/supported claim about?
What is it that you are doing when you say things like this? Ive observed you seldom miss a chance to make this point, isnt it the same thing?
Also, if you think nothing can be known about god, what do you actually believe in? Dont you believe is nothing? Why would you believe in something you cant attribute any traits too? How?
I have not made any faith based arguments on here, because they are theology not philosophy
I have all kinds of faith based reasons why I believe in God, non of which I feel a need to defend, and non of which I feel should be attacked
If you have reasons that support your beliefs, then I'd say that there's (at least putatively) a rational basis for them.
I feel it is an important point to make, anytime anyone makes a claim about the nature of god. That they have no reason based support to make such a claim.
I am not sure many are aware of this, and it is relevant for them to understand such propositions are outside reason.
Faith isnt a reason. It has no explanatory power at all. Its the answer given when a person has no reason. If you had one, then thats what you would would say.
I prefer Thomas Merton’s understaning
Reason is in fact the path to faith, and faith takes over when reason can say no more.
Im sorry, that just sounds utterly vacuous of meaning to me. It says nothing about why you believe in something. It is just a word you use in place of a reason, because you dont really have one. If you did, again, you would offer that.
Judaism around the time of Jesus had incorporated more "other wordly" elements, as opposed to their mainly "this worldly" emphasis in pre-Babylonian Exile period. In the post-Exilic period, after Persia conquered Babylonia, much of Persia's Zoroastrian influence worked its way into the common Judaic practices by at leas the 3rd century BCE. For example, we see evidence in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and Enoch 1 and 2 more of an emphasis on angels and heavenly beings. Even towards the end of the Hebrew Bible, in Ezekiel and Daniel we see grandiose visions of angels and God's presence sitting on a chariot situated on strange angel-like wheels and archangels, etc. In the Book of Daniel we see the idea of a Son of Man that sits next to Ancient of Days. This Son of Man is perhaps the missing link in the 1st Century Judaism and the early Jesus movement.
The Son of Man was associated as God's scribe and helped judge the righteous- this is in books of Enoch I believe. Two things happened- the Son of Man was a nebulous figure in these visions and more elaborate stories developed to the role of this mysterious figure. In early Rabbinic Judaism, if we read Enoch 3 (written in the 500-600s CE), we see famous rabbis of the Talmudic period trying to ascend the heavens in a meditative technique whereby they try to see the vision of the chariot as described in Ezekiel and Daniel. In Enoch 3, it is revealed to Rabbi Ishmael ben Elisha that the Son of Man was once the living man Enoch (Noah's great-grandfather). Enoch was one of the only men transformed into an divine being (like an angel) called Metatron and becomes head of the angels and men in the realm of judgement of sins I believe. So Son of Man = Enoch = Metatron = right hand judgement figure
Anyways, this is some really escoteric stuff. Being that Rabbinic Judaism (post-Temple Judaism) emphasized this world as opposed to other wordly matters, this is some very fascinating and surprisingly other wordly stuff to be found in the early Rabbinic literature. This proves that the idea of the Son of Man was a powerful idea, so powerful it pokes through even in the post-Temple Judaism of the this-wordly variety typified by Rabbinic Judaism.
Now, if we only see remnants of this Son of Man emphasis in Rabbinic Judaism, I'm betting it was even more pronounced in Second Temple Judaism in the time of Jesus. That is to say, groups like the Dead Sea Scroll Sect/Essenes had versions of the Enoch 1 and ideas about the Son of Man in their literature. They certainly had more emphasis on the other worldly, with more discussion of angels, End of Times, struggle of good (the elect/saints) vs. the bad people. Sons of Light and Sons of Darkness are big with them.
So what is the nature of the Son of Man? I am not sure, but some texts identify it as an angelic being (specifically either with Metatron or Michael who could be interchangeable in some stories). Some identify it with the messiah (king from line of David), some identify it with its own being. There is a text in the Talmud where Rabbi Akiva mentions the possibility Daniel's vision was about the messiah. Rabbi Yose quickly dismisses him as being good at the law (halacha) but not good at intepreting/recalling the stories (aggadah).. that clearly (in his Yose's view that is) the figure next to the Ancient of Days was all of Israel. So we can see the impulse to identify the Son of Man as an individual messianic character in the Talmud even, even if ultimately this idea is rebuked.
So perhaps, Jesus being from the Galilean region was a mix of various Jewish ideas of the time- probably leaning towards a liberal Pharisee message (his ideas about the law essentially echo the debates between Rabbis Hillel and Shamai going on at the time), with heavy influences by the Essenes due to emphasis on other wordly- World to Come, Kingdom of Heaven is nigh!!, End of Times, good vs. evil, mention of angels, and heavy emphasis on idea of Son of Man. This group perhaps thought that Jesus was a human par excellence- with the soul of Adam.. thus the symbolic idea of being baptized by John was symbolic of his soul becoming more aligned with the heavenly sphere, perhaps gaining the abilities of the Son of Man on Earth, but as a human messiah - with these powers- not as a god-figure which he later became.
From this more nuanced idea of a human representative of the Son of Man, we can see it doesn't take too much for later disciples (after Jesus' death) to take this idea and go even further, making him a literal Son of God. Instead of Jesus being an exemplar of following the Torah to its fullest degree, the religion starts revolving around that actual person of Jesus himself as a divine figure that should be worshiped.. Thus, I think lines like "You can't go through the Father without the Son" in the Gospels, were interpolations after Jesus' death. The Son of Man references are probably more authentic to the original idea about what Jesus' character was in this early movement.
From Paul's idea of a literal Son of God, we have Jesus being with God since the beginning, and then him being coequal with God as a divine entity to be worshippped with God and from here it doesn't take much to get to the idea of the trinity which had many manifestations until it was "decided" by vote at the Council of Nicea some official version of this represented by the Church Father Athenasius.
Thus the trinity concept was a later development that evolved from the original Jesus movement by way of incremental steps, especially from people like Paul of Tarsus and later Church Fathers who wanted shape the theology a certain way.
Your account is good but the element of Gnostic influences upon the Pharisees and the early Christians make it more complicated. Jesus is heard countering both Sadducees and Pharisees so it all got mixed up before the Pauline view became dominant.
The efforts made by the early church Fathers to make all the first arguments disappear into doctrine makes what was happening with the Jews in Jerusalem and the early Christians of many different outlooks very difficult to reconstruct as history. Throw in the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD and you have a perfect storm of conflicting ideas fighting in ever shifting arenas of language and culture.
Jesus quotes concerning law seem pretty in line with pharisaic notions. My own theory is he was may have been a part of that movement and when the text say “Pharisees” it means a specific type or group of Pharisees. Or he may have been uniquely representative of the an Haaretz Jews as were found in the countryside of Galllee. That is to say, he emphasized the intent of the law being most important, not the extreme ritual purity aspects which was an innovation/attribute of Pharisees to add Kohein/priestly purity laws upon all Jews. It could have represented class struggles of the time. The lower am Haaretz had it right in other words..
Gnostics I think came from Greek/Persian/Egyptian influence on diaspora Jews in Syria and Egypt and had less impact on Jews in Judea proper. However, parallels with Gnostic ideas can be seen in angelic beings and layers of heaven which I think were more a general influence fro
Babylonian and Persian cultures after the Babylonian exile.
It does seem clear through Paul’s epistles and Acts that the early movement was of a more Torah based character and that he had conflicts with specifically James/Jacob, Jesus brother who headed the early community. I agree with many scholars who argue that there was never a reconciliation of Paul and James. Though Acts make it seem like a clean alliance after a Jerusalem council it seems probable that Paul was not liked by James and changed the fundamental direction of the group. Pauline’s ideas obviously became dominant as it was geared to a more open and wider pagan audience.
Well said. I will take a closer look at those distinctions between Pharisees.
The struggles between Paul's and James' narrative was the most critical matter at that time.
It is interesting to me how deeply the Gnostic element got involved very early. Those Babylonian and Persian cultures popping up in different ways, perhaps.
Yes, it is amazing how even scholarly types will forget that none of these Jewish sects/parties during the time of Jesus were monolithic. Just like there are various kinds of Democrats and Republicans, these sects had internal debates within them too that made for even more diverse viewpoints. There were Pharisees who thought divorce was allowed for reasons other than adultry (House of Hillel for example) and there were Pharisees who did not (House of Shammai), for example. There were more lenient Pharisees and more strict Pharisees. Jesus may represent a more lenient Pharisaic faction- one more in touch with the am ha-aretz. It was a sort of reform movement for Pharisees, perhaps. Their oral Torah traditions allowed for a multiplicity of interpretations. If the Talmud represents some viewpoints of pre-Temple Pharisaic thought, then indeed rabbis disagreed on many issues. If John the Baptist has connections with some sort of Essenic sect in the Galilee, then perhaps he represents a more outward-facing Essene vs. the more inward/purity-obssessed facing Dead Sea Scroll sect represented in, of course, the Dead Sea Scroll texts. The Sadducees may also have had some diversity, though their literature is scarcer if at all.
Quoting Valentinus
Absolutely. This is a nuanced but major point people overlook. If Paul's writings in Galatians is examined, it is very apparent that James distrusts Paul to the point of sending spies on him for allowing Jews to eat at the same table as gentiles (who ate unkosher foods). There seems to be little love lost between the two, and I doubt that rift was actually repaired, though Acts tries to gloss over it. James can be said to represent the original movement- a link that can go back to John the Baptist, then Jesus, then James as leaders of this particular apocalyptic Jewish movement.
Quoting Valentinus
Yes the Gnostic elements were pretty early, but Gnosticism as a movement was around before Jesus. It was very easy to fit him in their scheme of a God of Light above the earthly god, the Demiurge. What people don't take in consideration is how Paul's theology was a sort of "limited" Gnosticism. Instead of the God of the Hebrew Bible being an evil Demiurge who is keeping people from knowing the real God of Light, he replaces the Demiurge with the Torah. The Torah represents the earthly realm and is replaced, via the death/resurrection of Jesus with an easier form of "redemption". The Torah is thus replaced by the dead/resurrected god-man in the figure of Jesus in Paul's conception, just as in Gnosticism, the God of the Hebrew Bible (associated with the Demiurge) is replaced by the God of Light.
Paul also adds in mystery cultic practices too. The god's death and resurrection and communion through the eating of flesh and blood of the god, while foreign to Jewish ideologies of the time, fit in perfectly with cults like to Mitrhas (heavily practiced in Tarsus.. Paul's home by the way), Isis, Dionysus and several other popular pagan mystery cults. If this is true, Paul essentially fused the pagan Mediterranean influences of both Gnostics (Torah replaced by Jesus death), and Mystery Cult religions (communion with resurrected god through eating blood and flesh..metaphorically in this case).
And if it was not already complicated enough, the sources of different mythologies you cite got mixed into the Plato and Neo Plato thing as those different languages are themselves separate responses to elements that are not clearly recorded.
This all needs more than one discussion but I will only emphasize before leaving for the night that it did not help clarity these things that all sides of the discussion were all operating in mediums of fluid chaos all at the same time.
May the days get longer and there be less chaos. The bad kind, anyway.
Sure, look at Philo and his idea of Logos already there pre-Gospel/Christian period.. Clearly, Diasporan Jewish thought was influenced through Platonic ideals (as can be seen clearly in Philo of Alexandria, a Jewish diasporean intellect and possibly first theologian of sorts). But, this just lends more credence that Pauline and gentile Christian ideology was borrowing heavily from outside influences that were not there in the original Galilean/Judean Jesus movement. Then in the early Middle Ages, of course there was more influence by the Neoplatonists, but by that time, it was already way off from the original being 300 years removed and redacted/interpolated by Church Fathers with various agendas, descending from an already off- Pauline theology.
However, it must be noted that the fact of the dogma having been developed as it was (rather than, e.g., in an Arian direction) was predicated on the decisive influence of St. Antony (a very important influence on Athanasius), who, in the third century, was giving direct testimony on the divinity of Christ. To put it differently: the divinity of Christ (rather than his primacy among creatures -- the Arian interpretation of the texts) was selected, among other reasons, because Antony declared that he knew, by direct apprehension of Christ, that Christ was God. And people, including Athanasius, believed in Antony, on account of his all too obvious holiness. In other words, it was not solely a matter of textual interpretation. Of course, since Antony, hundreds of other saints have reinforced that aspect, of the direct apprehension of Christ's divinity.
In my opinion, there are two great classical sources on the logical analysis of the Trinity itself -- St. Augustine (De Trinitate) and St. Thomas Aquinas in the Summa. Both, in different ways, clarify a lot of the doubts raised here. My own preference is Aquinas: in the Summa Theologiae, the questions 27-43 of the First Part are an in-depth analysis of the Trinity. I still remember the joy of reading it for the first time some 20 years ago, and of understanding so much that is obscure about the idea of the Trinity.
http://newadvent.org/summa/1.htm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_WPuPdFsIg
Here is this video for reference.
@ 1:44 the following stated about the Trinity:
1. The father is God, the holy spirit, and the Holy Spirit is God.
2. The father, son and holy spirit are distinct.
3. There is only One God.
How does a person make sense of these three propositions?
In that video i linked, the person makes a comparison to how some people may think of Superman as "Kal -el", as "Clark Kent" and as "Superman," but each is only a name for one person.
@ 0:26, the video explains what modalism is and states that it is considered heretical.
Your example of how a man can be a father, husband, and brother sounds like modalism.
Do you disagree?
Church fathers it seems.
Three drops of water in different locations are distinct and have their own identity BUT they're ALL water.
Bring the three drops of water together and they coalesce to form ONE drop of water not 3.
But it was quite funny. Thanks.
Secondly, if Jesus is the son, shouldn't we follow his teachings about who/how the father and holy spirit are? Didn't Jesus explain his son-hood?
Thirdly, (from the video) what is wrong with modalism? What makes it illogical (if it is)?
In your example, a body and three persons can serve to explain partialism.
Said the guy who posted a video link.
Well, I watched the video. It was not worth the time. You'll have to take a chance, apparently, just like I did.
What about it is heretical?
I personally don't believe it is heretical, but other Christians have condemned it as such and I am just repeated their opinion on the matter.
Perhaps if you can specify what is the main problem (rather than give a list or a handwave), we can pick it up and run with it. I'll do it through a link to a question to the Summa, since that's how the Summa is organized -- in a question and answer format. Your question is already answered there. It ought to be enough to prod you into checking it, but to each his own.
1. The father is God, the holy spirit is God, and the Holy Spirit is God.
2. The father, son and holy spirit are distinct.
3. There is only One God.
How is it that Jesus, the father, and the holy ghost are each fully God, distinct from each other, and there is only one God?
I think that's where the problem lies. If the original teacher(s) didn't have a problem with it, why should the students be the ones to determine whether it is logical or not. Why not consult the teacher (or the teachings)?
I believe somewhere in the gospels Jesus gave an answer to what he meant by the son. I don't think the trinity is as literal as most people take it to be. To me, the trinity seems to be a symbolic/poetic representation rather than literal interpretation.
If, by faith, one believes that there is such a thing as the 3 O God, It is perfectly logical to believe that this Being could, if It so chooses to, to be such a thing as we describe as the trinity. In this case the logic would be:
there is such a thing as an omnipotent being
omnipotent meaning one can do anything
the trinity as defined is something
A being who can do anything can do something
A being such as this can be the trinity
There is no rational argument I know know off that I supports the existence of a an omnipotent being. So I do not think there is a rational argument outside faith that supports the trinity.
Questions 27-29.
I don't want to be too much of a curmudgeon, so here goes a short summary of each:
Q. 27 - what does it mean to say that there is procession (i.e. diversity) in God? What kind of diversity is there? Does it violate divine simplicity?
Q. 28 - Can there be relations within an absolutely simple God? How?
Q. 29 - Is it correct to apply the word "person" to these relations within the deity? Why?
You want an argument, but what is required is a revision of the meaning of the terms being used (and this cannot be done through argumentation). Take a chance and read what Aquinas has to say. Be assured that Aquinas is much, much smarter than Craig or van Inwegen or any other philosopher mentioned in the video.
And another caveat: regardless of the brains of Aquinas, this topic is not amenable to brute force, unaided by revealed wisdom. From a human (natural reason) viewpoint, Trinitarian dogma is an unnecessary hypothesis. It is not required to explain any data of nature, or any insight about the deity. Its usefulness arises as an instrument to interpret Scripture (particularly Jesus' teachings about his own role). People who do not accept those sayings have no use for Trinitarian dogma, and it is no wonder that they don't engage in the conceptual effort to reconfigure the terms being used so as to make the words adjust to the available data. But for those who take seriously stuff like "I and the Father are one", "Go and baptize all nations in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost", "I will send you a Paraclete", etc. Trinitarian dogma is among the most intriguing ideas to have crossed any human mind (and it opens up a wealth of metaphorical wisdom to deal with quite unrelated subjects).
Bourland had the view, which I think I share, that if a statement cannot be stated in E-prime, it has no meaning.
One can, however, state the more natural doctrine, which I conjecture most Christians intuitively feel, which says that God manifests in three different ways according to time and circumstance. We name those three different manifestations Father, Son and Holy Spirit. So far as I can see that version does not contradict any of the mentioned excerpts from the Bible.
PS: I wrote this post in E-Prime, or at least tried to. Please let me know if I missed a bit.
The issue here is that this is a false analogy. The father, son and holy spirit are all distinct from each other in a real sense and not in the sense of how we experience God. Thus, the father, son and holy spirit are each fully God, distinct from each other and yet there is only one God.
- Jesus (from the Bible).
- Jesus (from the Bible).
I don't know where people get their information about the trinity but I think their misrepresentation is what is heresy!
‘The Christian doctrine of the Trinity (Latin: Trinitas, lit. 'triad', from Latin: trinus "threefold")[1] holds that God is one God, but three coeternal consubstantial persons[2] or hypostases[3]—the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit—as "one God in three Divine Persons". The three Persons are distinct, yet are one "substance, essence or nature”’
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity
So they are distinct, means they were distinct, means they have always been distinct. So how can they be the same substance?
Or where they once all one? But that is not consistent with them being coeternal.
So coeternal and of one substance are at odds.
I don't think it is intended to, and logic has nothing at all to do with it. At least in Catholicism - it is referred to as the mystery of the Trinity - it is outside reason, it is a matter of faith.
I am a faithless heathen :grin: God quite probably exists sums up how I feel.
Logically? Probably, yes. Outside of a strictly logical/scientific framework, it is coherent, just as the triple goddesses of history are. If you are trying to analyse spiritual matters in a logical fashion, I'm afraid you might be wasting your time. :roll:
Ha - no worries, I am not an evangelist. Just important to know from what basis the argument is coming from. It solves a lot of communication problems if this is clear.
So there are 3 ways one can believe something to be true, and act accordingly. Faith, Reason, or Fact.
Fact just is 2 + 2 = 4.
Reason - can not be in conflict with fact
Faith - can not be in conflict with fact or reason
Only a fool argues fact, and only a fool argues with him
All arguments based on reason are subject to argument
There is no basis at all to argue against faith - one is free to believe what one wants again as long as not in conflict with faith or reason
should be fact or reason - mea culpa
Faith can be in conflict with reason: people have had and do have faith in all sorts of different Gods. Some of that faith must be misplaced.
missed the point - if it is outside reason, it is not a valid faith based truth. People can believe anything - you even chose not to believe the mathematical definition of a point - because it didn't fit your position
It's rather that it does not fit maths (leads to a divide by zero error) rather than it fits my position. So my argument stems from a believe in logic and the axioms of arithmetic. So I have faith in the axioms of arithmetic.
I rest my case
Maybe it's better to say 'I induce the axioms of arithmetic are true from volumes of existing evidence' rather than 'I have faith in the axioms of arithmetic'? Or does that transfer faith to induction? I'm not sure thats quite right; its more I induce induction is reliable that I have faith in induction.
Just following the concersation here...could each of you define “faith” please? Having trouble following your points.
And I presume you also dont have a reason in the same way you dont have proof under your definition?
Ok, follow up question: can you describe what you mean by “outside reason” as opposed to “not in conflict with reason”?
I would not agree - until you can make me a argument with propositions that are true, that ends in the conclusion that follows " therefor it is unreasonable to believe in the trinity" I am free to believe in such a thing as the trinity by faith alone.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/241257
I would like an answer to my follow up please gentlemen, Im asking earnestly and not to prop up a future argument against faith.
thought i did with this
Quoting Rank Amateur
Ah, ok. Didnt realize it was directed at me, I see it now thanks.
Stop and give it some thought, and then make me a formal argument that ends in the conclusion " therefor it is unreasonable to believe in the trinity" As others have tried to tell you, the trinity is outside human reason, but that does not put it in conflict with human reason - unless you can make that case.
To help some - If one can by faith alone, and not in conflict with fact or reason believe in the God of the Christian bible, one can logically believe such a God can if it so chooses to be such a thing as the Trinity.
So to show it is unreasonable to believe in the trinity, you would have to show it is unreasonable to believe in God.
Although some very smart people would love such an argument to exist, they have yet been able to make it - and not from lack of trying.
I think your issue is, to you, being outside reason - means it is in conflict with reason. They are not the same thing. I would be happy to agree, as I have before that the God of the Christian Bible is outside reason. But as above that does not mean it is in conflict with reason - until such an argument can be made.
Yes, I think the Trinity is relevant only to theologians that have sufficient hubris to believe they can understand the nature of God. If they had kept their arcane 'investigations' to themselves there would have been no harm done. Unfortunately, they forced it to be included it in their catechism, which all RCs are 'obliged to believe' (whatever that means):
[quote=RC Catechism item 234]"The mystery of the Most Holy Trinity is the central mystery of Christian faith and life. It is the mystery of God in himself. It is therefore the source of all the other mysteries of faith, the light that enlightens them. It is the most fundamental and essential teaching in the 'hierarchy of the truths of faith'.[/quote]
IMHO, their doing so is a perfect example of academic arrogance that shows contempt for the concerns of ordinary believers and no thought for the consequences of trying to forces their 'angels dancing on heads of pins' nonsense onto people to whom it is repellant. They miss the whole point of spirituality.
The Christians I admire appear to never waste a moment's thought on the so-called 'mystery of the trinity'
I can be too pragmatic, but all those types of arguments are roads to nothing of use in my opinion.
I don’t mean to derail the thread, but I will say my piece about this and leave it alone.
Physical reality independent of minds doesn’t distinguish between the cat and the chair (never mind that the cat has a mind as well). Reality without minds is an incoherent idea. You have to posit a mind to even talk about reality. If there were no minds, reality would be amorphous. It is our minds that divide up reality. Facts are articles of knowledge, an epistemic issue, not a metaphysical issue independent of minds.
I think DiegoT and I would agree on this. Now back to philosophy of religion, please. :)
However, these perspectives (that are made of bearing in mind certain bits of information and becoming oblivious to everything else) are not reality. When a human being needs to make sense of the universe beyond oranges, he needs to take into consideration more relationships in the phenomenal world, and that implies a more complex analysis that the one required to count pieces of food, which is something by the way that even bees do.
If you say that there are two oranges on the table, you are actually saying: there are two oranges, and there is the relationship between them and the combined effect of the two as a system: the sum of their gravitational force; the increased probability that a fruit fly finds them (as the combined aroma is a stronger signal), the ideas in your mind about oranges; the perturbation of the electromagnetic field; and so on. All of these factors would be different or disappear if the oranges are put in different locations of the universe. So the location of the two oranges on the table at the same time, that is: the relationship between the two items, is also real, and physical, and an element to take into consideration. Therefore, you have two oranges, plus the relationship of the oranges between them and their environment. It so happens that what makes oranges oranges and not stones, are also relationships; so the difference between two oranges and two oranges and their effect on the world is just the number of relationships, or operations in the physical world that you are willing to consider.
As this always happens with any number of items, we can deduce that it´s never 2 + 2=4, but 2+2 equal 4 plus the effects derived from existing 2 oranges on the table and not any other number.
So when we say that if I eat three chocolate bars there is one left, what we do is: to consider only the levels of reality more meaningful for us (not the atomic level, where there are no chocolate bars; not the astronomic level where only massive celestial bodies are in sight); and you are actively ignoring all that is has to do with eating three chocolate bars and being one left. Which might not be much, or it might be a sick stomach; but in any case it´s never equal to zero. It never really is. Say that instead of chocolate bars, we are talking gun shots directed to you from a pistol which still has one bullet in its barrel.
You may say that all those effects are trivial, but they are not, because we live in a world in which the flight of a butterfly can cause major changes given enough time. That is, a universe where everything is connected. When we teach that two plus two equals four for real, we are encouraging people to be oblivious to many connections that are relevant for our problems. We teach the young to encapsulate their thinking process in disconnected boxes, and to lose the capacity to take into account factors that might change how we understand a problem entirely. We are not supposed to do that; we are not bees or chickens counting flowers or grains. We are animals that build whole worlds in our minds, to see many more connections through holistic images of the natural (and psychic) realities; even if we focus on one or two at a time when engaged in a practical action.
That is redundant nonsense. What in independent reality can be seen if you eye can’t see it etc etc
I have no interest of a discussion on if there is or is not an independent reality. As fun as such dorm room, beer fueled conversations were. Because such discussions have no useful purpose. They are just wormholes to no where.
The Christians I admire appear to never waste a moment's thought on the so-called 'mystery of the trinity'[/quote]
To believe in X and to give a moment's thought about X are quite independent from each other.
You do not have to assume a mind. It is the only thing you can be certain of in fact. So if you think you can base conclusions on that, then its redundent to state we cant know anything about independent reality without assuming a mind.
I think that is where it seemed like nonsense.
Ok, other minds must be posited, I agree with that. I do not think concieving of the universe before minds existed requires a hypothetical viewpoint or mind not your own any more than concieving about the universe with minds. Isnt that reinforced by the point I agreed to initially? The universe, like other minds, is posited and supported by evidence and consistency.
Alright then.
Scientists and intellectuals today, who were the bishops and priests of the Middle Ages, are also too arrogant and they take advantage of their position and knowledge to influence common people with their own ideas way more than it is fair and justified.
Perhaps the words “different” and “same” are used in an idiosyncratic way.
The three could be different in terms of some thing but same as in they’re all God.
What that thing that makes the three not-same needs to be clarified. Could it be that the son is physical and the other two are not. We still need to distinguish the Holy Spirit from The Father. Care to take a go at it?
I think I at least understand your point better. Let me paraphrase and see if I have it.
There is an objective reality- things are
But until this objective reality is observed by something with a "mind" (probably should define this), its existence has no value
Something must exist in thought to have value, whether or not it exists in objective reality
Is that close?
According to Bozoist doctrine :smile: this is yet another example of the divisive nature of thought at work.
As example, the word "God" is a noun, and the function of nouns is to separate one thing from another. Thus, by the act of naming God, God is assumed to be something different from everything else, even though Catholic doctrine asserts that there is only one God and that God is ever present everywhere in all times and places, which implies that God is one with everything or is in fact everything.
But thought is still doing it's division thing, so the one God is divided from everything else, and then divided again in to three.
Here's another example of mind imposed fantasy division which seems relevant to the subject of God.
We have one word "creation" and another word "destruction" which implies that these are two different separate processes. Semantically this is of course true.
But in the real world every act of creation is an act of destruction, and every act of destruction is an act of creation. It's a single unified process which thought arbitrarily divides in to conceptual parts for reasons of conversational convenience. This act of conceptual division is useful, but it doesn't mirror reality accurately.
This is the kind of mess we inevitably wander in to when discussing many religious ideas. We're attempting to discuss a single unified reality with language built upon the process of division. So basically every time we name or try to define something we are generating more illusion.
There's only so far we can go exploring such subjects with ideas, words, and language etc because that methodology imposes profound distortions upon what is being observed.
Jake - just to be clear there is no Catholic doctrine that says God is Everything - that is your addition - Catholic doctrine says God is God, and God is everywhere.
Yes, I understand, I am offering my own interpretation of that doctrine, agreed.
My reasoning is, if God is everywhere, God is thus everything. That is, there is a single unified reality, divided conceptually by the human mind.
; quatativly different. (Book : every time I find the meaning of life they change it)
By calling Himself the Son of Man, Jesus was making a divine statement that set Him apart from His human flesh. He was conceived of the Holy Spirit in Virgin Mary’s womb. He was truly human as the rest of us. This is why, in the human form, He had body (Luke 24:39), He experienced hunger when He fasted (Matthew 4:2), was weary (John 4:6), had soul with human emotions – marvel and sorrow (Matthew 8:10 & Matt. 26:38), and bled when injured.
But the spirit with which He was conceived, was of God.
God is a spirit (John 4:24)
When we say that Jesus is man, we do not simply mean that he is partially man. We mean that he is fully human – everything that belongs to the essence of true humanity is true of him. So Jesus was hundred percent divine and hundred percent human, each nature is full and complete.
Evertime he says “Me/Mine”, He implies His earthly form. And when He says “My Father”, He implies the Spirit of God present in Him.
In Luke 18:18-19, as a man, He said that none is good except God. But as the Lord, He said “I am the good Shepherd” (John 10:11)
In Matthew 4:1-11, as a man, saw that the devil tempted Him. As the Lord, He did not fall into that temptation (James 1:13).
In John 8:28, as a man, the Father taught Him. As the Lord, He Himself is wisdom (1 Corinthians 1:30)
In Matthew 24:36, as a man, He was ignorant of when He would return. As the Lord, He knows all things. (1 John 3:20)
The Father, The Son of God, The Holy Spirit – All these are one.
I and the Father are one. (John 10:30)
For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. (1 John 5:7)
Whenever a number is specifically attributed to God in the Bible, that number is always one.
Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord (Deuteronomy 6:4)
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made, and without him not one thing was made that has been made. 4In him was life, and that life was the light for humankind. (John 1:1-4)
And the Word became flesh, and moved His tent in among us; and we beheld His glory, the glory as of an only begotten from a Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:14)
And His name is called the Word of God. (Revelation 19:13)
For He whom God has sent speaks the words of God. For God does not give the Spirit by measure (to Him). The Father loves the Son, and has given all things into His hand. (John 3:34-35)
So shall My Word be that goeth forth out of My mouth: it shall not return unto Me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it. (Isaiah 55:11)
but, just as the Father has commanded Me, this I do, so that the world may know that I love the Father. (John 14:31)
It is the Spirit that quickens. The flesh profits nothing: the words that I speak to you, are spirit and life. (John 6:63)
For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, (Colossians 2:9)
Then said Mary to the angel, How will this be, seeing I do not know a man? And the angel answered and said to her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon you, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow you. Therefore also, that holy thing which will be born of you will be called the Son of God. (Luke 1:34-35)
And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Go therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I commanded you. And lo, I am with you always, even until the end of the world. (Matthew 28:18-20)
And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Comforter, so that He may be with you forever, which is the Spirit of Truth – whom the world cannot receive, because the world neither sees Him nor knows Him. But you know Him. For he dwells with you and shall be in you. I will not leave you comfortless, but will come to you. Yet a little while, and the world will see Me no more. But you will see Me. For I live, and you will live. That day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you. (John 14:16-20)
This I have spoken to you being yet present with you. But the Comforter, which is the Holy Spirit (whom my Father will send in My name), He will teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have told you. Peace I leave with you; My peace I give to you. Not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your hearts be troubled, and do not fear. You have heard how I said to you, I am going away, and coming again to you. If you loved me, you would rejoice that I said, ‘I am going to the Father;’ for my Father is greater than I. (John 14:25-28)
For if I do not go away, the Comforter will not come to you. But if I depart, I will send Him to you. And when He is come, He will rebuke the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: of sin, because they do not believe on me; of righteousness, because I go to my Father and you will see Me no more; and of judgment, because the chief ruler of this world is judged already. I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot receive them now. However, when He is come (I mean the Spirit of truth), He will lead you into all truth. He will not speak of Himself, but whatever He hears, that He will speak, and He will show you things to come. He will glorify Me, for He will receive of Mine and will show it to you. All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said to you that He will take of Mine and show it to you. After a while you will not see Me, and again after a while you will see Me, because I go to the Father. (John 16: 7-16)
Simply, there is no verse that states that God is in three essence.
According to Swedenborg, this is precisely the case. There are three essential parts of a human being without which we would not be human:
Soul
Body
Actions
(“Actions” includes what we say or write as well.)
These are all common Biblical concepts.
This forms the basis for a simple, clear understanding of the Trinity in one divine Person of God:
The Father is the divine soul.
The Son is the divine body, or human manifestation.
The Holy Spirit is all of God’s words and actions flowing out from God.
We would never say that there are three “persons” in a human being because that human being has three essential parts: soul, body, and actions.
Similarly, if God has a divine soul, which is the Father, a divine body, which is the Son, and a divine proceeding or flowing outward, which is the Holy Spirit, we would never say that there are three “persons” of God. Rather, we would say that there is one God with three essential components.
Another way of formulating the Trinity in God is:
The Father is the divine love, which is the underlying substance or soul of God. (1 John 4:8 and 4:16 state that “God is love.”)
The Son is the divine wisdom, which is the expression or human presence of God. (John 1:14 states that “the Word became flesh and lived among us.”)
The Holy Spirit is the divine proceeding, which is God’s truth and power flowing out into the universe, and to humans and angels. (John 14:26 says, “The Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything.”)
If we think of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in this way, many otherwise confusing statements in the Bible make perfect sense.
For example, the highly philosophical opening statement in the Gospel of John (John 1:1-18) becomes a luminous poetic expression of God expressing himself through his eternal Word, which was made flesh (human) as Jesus Christ.
It also makes perfect sense that Jesus said “Whoever has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9), since Jesus is the human presence and expression of the Father, which is his inner divine soul. And of course, when Jesus says, “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30), that also makes perfect sense.
If any truth were to come to us direct from God, we wouldn’t be able to understand it. Pure truth as it exists in the mind of God is far beyond the capacity of our limited human minds to grasp. Much of the language applied to God in the Bible is poetic and symbolic rather than literal and technical. But the fact is, if God were to speak to us the way God actually thinks, we humans would not even be able to understand the words, let alone the ideas behind them. We would be like a kindergarten class attending a lecture by a nuclear physicist. That’s why the Bible uses metaphors such as “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” in describing God’s characteristics.
However, if we interpret these metaphors in the right way, with God’s wisdom, then everything that the Bible says about God, and about the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, falls beautifully into place. God took the cultural history that we humans carved out, and wrote a divine message on it. The finger of God has inscribed deeper, spiritual and divine meanings into the stories, prophecy, and poetry of our Bible.
And yet, if we look deeper, and see what God’s finger has inscribed into the Bible narrative, we can see more and more clearly the message of love, wisdom, and compassion for our fellow human beings that God is continually offering to us within those sacred pages.
God’s eternal divine truth shines through the pages of the Bible in a form that we can see, understand, and take to heart. And that divine truth has the power to transform our lives.
This blog post, of course, may raise more questions than it answers. But I hope it is enough to show that there is a coherent, Bible-based rejection of the widely accepted brain-bending and logic-defying doctrine of a Trinity of persons in God.
At least that's theoretically possible, except for the part about the baby-daddy being a deity.
yeah, i would have to agree with some of this. I do count myself as a trinitarian but when some Christians try to act like its hard to grasp i definitely scratch my head. The way i explain it to my self is. The Holy spirit travels between multiple geometric dimensions. Jesus Christ stays in the 3rd and 4th dimension and God the father resides in the 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th dimension. I really don't reject any of the beliefs by the Roman Catholic church on Trinitarianism. I would imagine alot of Roman Catholics Right Wrong or indifferent decide not to get into geometry or advanced geometry when discussing the Trinity.
I hope i didn't offend anyone with this but this was the forum topic.
Thats interesting. Where did you get that from? As in I assume thats some form of New Age belief?
"a book on the ground and essnce of being and Being, "
essence of being and being? I've never heard that phrase before. I don't expect you to go into great detail so that you can protect your book idea but i'm guessing the book deals with consciessness?
thanks. I took it from a youtube video for the most part.
sounds interesting. I won't ask further because you still haven't published the book.
Good historical comments, though I don't think Christianity was any particular single movement in the first centuries after Jesus had departed.
Greek philosopher Celsus (~ 175) noted the numerous, zealous Christian cults and factions, fighting more or less everyone (including their rival Christians), and their refusal to cooperate with, even debate, others.
Emperor Theodosius I (347-395) officially decreed them "dementes vesanosque" (demented lunatics) in 380 — everyone but the Roman Catholics of course, now rubber-stamped by Rome.
With Emperor Constantine (272-337), organized efforts to fight others and unite all under Roman Catholicism (i.e. under Rome) got underway, backed by the empire, in an attempt to strengthen the empire — something Tim Whitmarsh called "seismic" as far as history goes (heck, Catholics use the language, Latin, to this day).
The Romans tried to deal with the cesspool of cults, countryside preachers, resentment/dissidents, etc, of Middle Eastern antiquity, in their brutish ways, and Christianity, in the form of Catholicism, eventually came out on top.
And then a few centuries later, Muhammad emerged, and yet another religion hit the market.
[quote=Quran 4:157]And [for] their saying, "Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah." And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain.[/quote]
That said, if one considers the historical development of the doctrine, the Christian Trinity seems a rationalization of Jesus' divinity within a monotheistic framework.
First, let me say that I'm not a religious person, so I'm not trying to defend any particular religion. That said, I think you can make sense of the idea of a trinity.
The problem is in the definitions as some have already pointed out. No definition will satisfy everyone, but that doesn't mean that you can't make sense, in some contexts, of the idea of a trinity. Definitions are just guides, they're not the be all and end all of how we use words. There is no definition that will satisfy every use of the word game, but that doesn't mean we can't use the word to refer to particular games.
My take on the trinity is simply this: There is nothing logically incoherent in saying that there can be three persons all partaking of the same nature and yet be three distinct beings. For example, let's say the nature of God is 1) omniscient , i.e., he/she knows all that is possible to be known; 2) omnipotent, i.e., can do anything that is logically possible; and finally, 3) omnipresent, in so far as one can make sense of what it means to be omnipresent. If consciousness is what is at the core of reality, then it could make sense that a being might be everywhere at once. Moreover, even if you throw one of the three core ideas (say omnipresent) out, you could still make sense of the other two. I think one can make sense of the idea, in some context, or some use of the terms.
The objections are going to be that the definition goes against some religious orthodoxy, but I don't care. My point is to make sense of it in some context or use. Just as we can make sense of children playing a game without the game have clearly defined rules, or without there ever been such a game before. We still know a game when we see it.
Father = F
Son = S
Holy ghost = G
1. Father, son and holy ghost are the same entity
2. The father is distinct from the son and the holy ghost
I guess people take statements 1 and 2 together to be mutually incompatible or incoherent or self-contradictory.
My explanation is this:
3. F = S +/- x
4. S = G +/- y
x and y are properties that are added/subtracted from the Father to yield the son or the holy ghost.
There would be a contradiction if the claim is
6. F =/= S =/= G as this contradicts 1 above. This is not what is beibg claimed. Rather 3 and 4 are being asserted and that simply means the following:
The father, the son and the holy ghost IS G +/- x +/- y and G +/- y and G. They're the same and yet distinct but not in a mutually exclusive way.
Yup
Must? Why? All the Gods we have ever worshipped are just names for aspects of God. All the same thing. Just different perspectives. So why must (some) faith be misplaced?
I think making a distinction between faith in a property/characteristic of God and faith in the existence of God helps.
So we can say faith in the existence of God cannot be misplaced (if God exists).
But if person X believes in God with property A and not B, and person Y believes in God with property B and not A, then I think you could argue that one person's faith in a characteristic of God must be misplaced.
I would argue that, if people describe God like a shopping-list - includes this ingredient; does not include that ingredient - then the problem lies deeper than misplaced faith.
There are plenty, there is nothing significant about the Christian trinity bar it claims mother and father, and how important family are - problem is it's associated with God, rather than directly family.
Mind, Body, and Spirit makes One Man not three.
Mind of The Father, Body of Christ The Son, and The Holy Spirit makes One God not three.
It seems logical when seen like that.
Trinity is irrational in terms of the common understandings of persons: 3 persons = 1 person is logically impossible.
Trinity is defended by creating a metaphysical framework in which contradictions are avoided. That metaphysical framework succeeds in its task, but the problem is that it seems nothing more than post hoc rationalization. I look at the history of Christianity, and it appears this Trinity concept arose to rationalize Jesus' divinity within a monotheistic context. Kudos to the great thinkers for their developing this ingenious metaphysical account, but this doesn't make it any more convincing.
Quoting Walter Pound
I have met The Trinity of God thousands of times in person & what I found is that God is a number of beings that merge into one being.
It's kind of like when a person goes astral travelling & remains connected to their body via a thread type spiritual appendage that stretches infinitely. The soul flying around & exploring the astral worlds is the same person as the one lying in recline or meditating back at home on earth. And the one back on earth may be an ancient old grouchy thing while the soul flying around can be very youthful in appearance & behaviour. So they do not look or act the same. God is like that. It sends out aspects of itself into the various levels of the heavens & earth etc & they all remain connected to their source & are one with it. That's what God is like & that's how God can exist as a Trinity to some religions. Other religions see God as many more beings in one because God is everywhere at once & so must utilise many more bodies than just 3 & they all can manifest in unique ways depending on the environment they manifest into. However there are 3 basic aspects to God's nature.
God just spoke & said that "people have cherubim angel guards with them as well."
Cherubim angelic guards hold people away from The Tree of Life their souls come from.
In Genesis Cherubim angels are assigned to keep man at bay away from The Tree of eternal life. So people have them around them also, as well as The Trinity of God Itself