Rationalists critique things that in reality they don't understand. I don't like how Christians try to prove their faith is true but they have every right to defend the logic of their beliefs from rationalist attacks — Gregory

Isn't a logical defense a rational defense? If it can be defended rationally or logically then it should be capable of being understood rationally or logically.

You have not rationally, logically, or otherwise explained away the reason why there is no mention or claim that Jesus is God.

For the third time, you misspelled Ehrman's name. — Apollodorus

What is the difference between:

'Ehrman's' and 'Ehrman’s'. The first is from my post, which you quoted. The second is yours.

Once again you avoid substantive matters. The following statement is either true or false. If you think it is false then point out the errors. Show where in the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke Jesus calls himself God.

I think it's completely implausible that Matthew, Mark and Luke would not mention that Jesus called himself God if that's what he was declaring about himself. That would be a rather important point to make. This is not an unusual view amongst scholars; it's simply the view that the Gospel of John is providing a theological understanding of Jesus that is not what was historically accurate.

Christians believe the Trinity and Incarnation were originally truths of oral tradition — Gregory

Some Christians, not all. I have previously pointed to the First Council of Nicaea where these issues were argued and left unresolved, but one side was declared the winner for political reasons.

There enough ways for you to doubt the Bible and enough reasons for Christians to see it as consistent. It depends of which eyes you use to read it — Gregory

This is a fundamental mistake of Christian apologists. There are plenty of Christians who do see the inconsistencies. This does not mean they doubt the Bible.

I am glad you see this. I am sure that others do as well. I have repeatedly pointed to the NT and he repeatedly turns away from it.

I did not misspell his name. His name is correctly spelled. It is the same spelling you used. The error is that I wrote 'scholar's' rather than 'scholar'.

The real issue is not typographical. This is simply your attempt to avoid addressing the issues raised.

Most US colleges and universities are notoriously dominated by atheists and anti-Christians like Ehrman. The same applies to journals of "Biblical scholarship". — Apollodorus

Yes, I figured you would say that. My response is to your claim:

The truth of the matter is that his theories have been widely criticized by Christians and scholars in general.

Scholars in general include university scholars and board members of journals.

Once again, you have done everything you can to avoid addressing the issues.

For the third time:

According to Hurtado:

... To anyone familiar with a historical approach to the topic, these will not be novel conclusions. Indeed, they have been affirmed by a significant number of New Testament scholars, especially over the past several decades.

Now unless you are able to identify these scholars you have no basis to label them all as atheist or anti-Christian. The work they do stands on its own merits.

I’m vaguely aware of how Christianity came to be, and I’m not trying to deny any of it. I wasn’t aware of much that’s been discussed, so it may just be a confused thread from a confused mind. — Pinprick

I do not think you are confused. The Gospels do not form a single coherent whole. Most notably the differences between John and the canonical gospels. And then the imposition of the doctrines of the Church Fathers.

Which is the better guide to living depends on the individual, her capacities, desires, and inclinations. Some people want be shown the way and would otherwise be lost. Others are motivated by inquiry and want to find their own way.

If all (non-innate) human knowledge begins from a position of uncertainty emerging from ignorance, and a subset of humans value intellectual honesty, then the subset of humans must by default begin from an agnostic position. — Cartesian trigger-puppets

All human knowledge begins with opinion. That is why Aristotle typically begins with the opinions of others and why Descartes begins by rejecting the opinions of others and seeks something certain. Plato's divided line begins with the imagination and moves up to trust or opinion (pistis). Kant and others begins with experience.

First of all, you can’t even spell Ehrman’s name. — Apollodorus

First of all, if I misspelled his name then so have you.

The truth of the matter is that his theories have been widely criticized by Christians and scholars in general — Apollodorus

According to Hurtado:

... To anyone familiar with a historical approach to the topic, these will not be novel conclusions. Indeed, they have been affirmed by a significant number of New Testament scholars, especially over the past several decades.

This is not Ehrman's theory and cannot be dismissed by you as such.

Daniel Wallace has argued that in Misquoting Jesus Ehrman sometimes "overstates his case by assuming that his view is certainly correct." — Apollodorus

This is what you omitted when you quoted Wallace from Wiki:

Daniel Wallace has praised Ehrman as "one of North America's leading textual critics" and describes him as "one of the most brilliant and creative textual critics I have ever known".

Whatever disagreement Wallace has with another of Ehrman's books does not speak to the issues addressed here.

Following Wallace's statement in the Wiki article:

Ehrman's The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings is widely used at American colleges and universities.

A text that is widely used in American colleges and universities is about as mainstream as it gets.

"Andreas J. Köstenberger, Darrell L. Bock and Josh D. Chatraw have disputed Ehrman's depiction of scholarly consensus — Apollodorus

This lacks necessary specifics. Consensus about what? Ehrman's writings cover a lot of issues.

And following this quote:

Michael R. Licona, notes, however, that "his thinking is hardly original, as his positions are those largely embraced by mainstream skeptical scholarship"

And this:

Gary Kamiya states in Salon that "Ehrman's scholarly standing did not soothe the evangelical Christians who were outraged by Misquoting Jesus. Angered by what they took to be the book's subversive import, they attacked it as exaggerated, unfair and lacking a devotional tone.

Andreas J. Köstenberger, Darrell L. Bock and Josh D. Chatraw are evangelical Christians. That they faulted Ehrman's work for lacking in "devotional tone" is telling.

Ehrman is an atheist and anti-Christian agitator. I'm not surprised that you seem incapable of citing impartial sources in support of your spurious theories. — Apollodorus

Funny. A source that criticizes him for not being devotional is hardly an impartial source. You skip the stuff about Ehrman's professorship at a major university, that his text on the history of early Christian writings is widely used in American colleges and universities, and that he serves on the board of several journals of Biblical scholarship.

The fact that you are agitated by scholarly work on Christian history does not make him an agitator.

There are yet further distinctions. Rather than describe it in my own words, here is a brief synopsis from a review of the eminent New Testament scholar's Bert Ehrman's "How Jesus Became God"

The ascription of divine status to Jesus and the accompanying devotional practices that are reflected in the New Testament arose only after—though astonishingly soon after—Jesus’ crucifixion. Key to this development were experiences (“visions”) of the resurrected Jesus, which generated in the earliest circles of Jewish believers the conviction that God had raised Jesus (bodily) from death and exalted him to a unique heavenly status and glory. Further developments in christological belief over the ensuing decades and centuries led to the classic doctrine of the Trinity ...

... To anyone familiar with a historical approach to the topic, these will not be novel conclusions. Indeed, they have been affirmed by a significant number of New Testament scholars, especially over the past several decades.

... Many Christians unacquainted with the historical data will assume that beliefs about Jesus’ divine status derive from Jesus’ own claims ... https://www.christiancentury.org/reviews/2014-07/lord-and-god

The bolded statement is from the reviewer Larry W. Hurtado, professor emeritus of New Testament language, literature, and theology at the University of Edinburgh.


And from an interview with Ehrman on NPR:

During his lifetime, Jesus himself didn't call himself God and didn't consider himself God, and ... none of his disciples had any inkling at all that he was God. ...

You do find Jesus calling himself God in the Gospel of John, or the last Gospel. Jesus says things like, "Before Abraham was, I am." And, "I and the Father are one," and, "If you've seen me, you've seen the Father." These are all statements you find only in the Gospel of John, and that's striking because we have earlier gospels and we have the writings of Paul, and in none of them is there any indication that Jesus said such things. ...

I think it's completely implausible that Matthew, Mark and Luke would not mention that Jesus called himself God if that's what he was declaring about himself. That would be a rather important point to make. This is not an unusual view amongst scholars; it's simply the view that the Gospel of John is providing a theological understanding of Jesus that is not what was historically accurate.

Right at the same time that Christians were calling Jesus "God" is exactly when Romans started calling their emperors "God." So these Christians were not doing this in a vacuum; they were actually doing it in a context. I don't think this could be an accident that this is a point at which the emperors are being called "God." So by calling Jesus "God," in fact, it was a competition between your God, the emperor, and our God, Jesus.

When Constantine, the emperor, then converted to Christianity, it changed everything because now rather than the emperor being God, the emperor was the worshipper of the God, Jesus. That was quite a forceful change, and one could argue that it changed the understanding of religion and politics for all time.
https://www.npr.org/2014/04/07/300246095/if-jesus-never-called-himself-god-how-did-he-become-one

The problem is solved if the Gospels are read and interpreted on their own merits rather than through what came to be the "official" doctrines of Christianity. What the Gospels say and what Christianity came to mean as the result of the work of the Church Fathers is two different things.

Another distinction is made between the early followers of Jesus and the establishment of the the canonical Gospels. The early Jesus movement was best characterized as 'inspirational', that is, by the indwelling of spirit. There was no one single expression of this. It was rather a matter of the witness of personal experience. The Church Fathers wanted to unify this movement and created the "catholic" or universal church. To do so they had to assemble gospels that provided a unified message, condemning all others, such as those of Gnostic Christianity, to heresy.

Despite what some here might say, this is all part of the historical record.

It's up to the individual of course. — Janus

It is, but the consequences of that decision go beyond the individual.

The point is that moral life isn’t dependent on religion, as some seem to claim. — praxis

Yes. I agree. I have known many who hide behind a religious facade.

The conceptual separation of church/state apparently dates back to at least Seneca. — praxis

An interesting claim. What evidence is this based on?

Seneca was a stoic who understood that virtue could be developed in the pursuit of well-being or eudaemonia, and not out of obedience to an authority or for some kind of postmortem reward. — praxis

Right, but the common man is not a stoic philosopher.

Religious life doesn't require moral development at all ... — praxis

In so far as you associate moral development with independence I agree. Religion can, however, promote behavior that is consistent with the political and social order of the ruler. Independence may be desirable in a democracy but not so much in other regimes.

All of this is off topic though. Perhaps a topic for a new threat.

I agree. This is an issue that came up in the thread on individualism.

An irrational personal attack is not a rational defense of the rationality of the Trinity.

You may have noticed that those in control have a tendency to do whatever it takes to remain in control. Is that wise? Sure, if you’re self interested. — praxis

I don't think that this is the whole of the story. If people could be self-governing the need for government would be minimal, but they are not.

Any moderator agreed on by us both will also be judged by the audience as to whether s/he moderates fairly. The only relevant requirement is 'demonstrably informed, patient, judgment' which a number of members more than show, IMO, like Banno or yourself, among others. I'd accept such a moderator so qualified who is also an avowed believer; why shouldn't my opponent do likewise the other way? Given our particular history, without moderation this debate could descend in to a circle-jerking shitshow real quick which would be of no use to anyone. Just my 2 shekels. — 180 Proof

As long as you can agree on a moderator. The way things often go my concern is that a moderator would be needed to moderate the disagreement over who is to moderate.

I think it sensible that you do not think a moderator's personal beliefs should disqualify them.

come to a close. — Jack Cummins

"Close to doing" not come to a close. This was another thread on another forum.

There is a problem with the Trinity. It is an historical fact that has been wrestled with by Christians for and against the doctrine for all long as it has existed. That debate has not been limited to how it is interpreted, but rather whether or not it should be accepted by Christians as true or not.

Sheep did just fine before there were sheep herders. — praxis

I will leave open the question of whether the sheep are better off with or without a sheep herder.

Anyway, you must be pleased with the results of this wise guidance and the current condition of humanity?

I did not say wise guidance. Note the three separate terms in Seneca's quote. the people, the wise, and the rulers. Philosophers from Plato to Machiavelli to Nietzsche have recognized the importance of religion for the people.

I am not pleased with the current condition of humanity but we do not know how things might have been otherwise.

My point is not to defend religion but rather that its useful for controlling the people, and that control is not just for the benefit of those in control.

I suspect that you might consider anyone who rejects your views would not be a suitable moderator. My suggestion is that you just make your argument and let each of us decide for ourselves who makes the stronger argument.

This thread is about the Trinity, not about you. I think you are confused. — Apollodorus

There is nothing in my posts about myself. In an earlier post I said:

It is not about me. And it is not about you. This is about a very old problem that Christian theologians have wrestled with for well over a thousand years. — Fooloso4

I keep pointing to the problem of the Trinity. I have offered what many Christian theologians, ancient and contemporary, take to be the only way out of the logical contradictions that arise from theological claims.

It is all well documented and easy to find, the work of Christian theologians.

The idea that religion is useful to rulers is often taken to mean that it is a tool for manipulation. It can be, but it is also useful for benevolent rulers who are aware that the wise are few and people need guidance, both for their own good and the good of the regime. An idea that is as old as religion itself.

It came close to doing what few topics are able to do, unite the forum in its opposition. At the same time it revealed the inability and unwillingness of theists and anti-theists alike to be self-reflective.

You miss the point. You can do one or the other, not both. You can attempt to make a rational theological argument and then deal rationally with any contradictions or you can decide that rational argument is inadequate for understanding the mystery.

If it can be shown that the "irrational" is rational then it ceases to be irrational. — Apollodorus

Is that something you think you can do? It is not what I said. What I said is that one can make a rational argument for theological irrationality. That is not at all the same.

In another life, I discussed 'secular spirituality' — Amity

I recall in another forum you talking about Robert Solomon, maybe his "Spirituality for the Skeptic".

It is not about me. And it is not about you. This is about a very old problem that Christian theologians have wrestled with for well over a thousand years.. It is about the attempt to avoid logical contradiction by arguing the being in question is unique and defining it in such a way that it is exempt from logical scrutiny.

Now one can make a rational argument for theological irrationality, and it has been done, but one cannot then argue that the irrational is rational.

I just thought that God is, by definition, sui generis. He isn't an ordinary "object" or comparable to anything else. — Apollodorus

This is a perfect example of magical thinking, The fact that a thing and the power of a thing are not the same is no longer a problem because this being is not like any other being, There are no constraints on this magical being because there are no constraints on what you can claim about it.

Such irrationalism is not acceptable to philosophy in general.

And yes, you are free to believe whatever you want, but you can't have it both ways, both rational thought and an irrational religion.

What ground is there or attributing extension to systems, when Descartes in Principles only attributes extension to “corporeal substance” — Mww

It is not the system that has extension but the things that comprise the system

When it is pointed out to you that there is no way you can possibly know that, you become agitated and abusive. — Apollodorus

We already had this discussion. Did you forget because you did not like the answer or did you close your eyes and pretend it didn't happen?

You choose to ignore what we are told Jesus said in the Gospels and latch on to something in John that does not unambiguously say what you want it to.

Since you see no contradiction it follows that it is not possible for you formulate it in such a way.
— Fooloso4

It doesn't follow at all. No logical or even grammatical connection between one thing and the other. — Apollodorus

Have you forgotten what is being discussed? You said:

So, there is no contradiction. It's just a matter of formulating it in a way that makes it acceptable to philosophy in general, not just to Christian philosophers. — Apollodorus

Since you see no contradiction you are not able to address what is contradictory in the claim of the Trinity.

My claim is that Christians have the right to interpret their own religion in whatever way they wish. — Apollodorus

Yes, you have said so many times. No one is preventing you from interpreting it any way you want. That does not mean that your interpretation cannot be challenged. This is a philosophy forum and differences of interpretation is one of the things we do on this forum. Do you think that your religious beliefs are somehow exempt from examination?

And once again: to challenge the Trinity is not anti-Christian. The problems with the idea have been discussed by Christians for almost 2,000 years. It is one thing if you are unaware of this. Is is quite another to close your eyes to it.

I will leave it there.

So, I don't need to formulate it for myself. — Apollodorus

The issue is whether it can be formulated it in a way that makes it acceptable to philosophy. Since you see no contradiction it follows that it is not possible for you formulate it in such a way.

My comment was addressed to him. Nothing to do with you. — Apollodorus

This is a public forum. If you don't want anyone to challenge your claims then you are in the wrong place.

I never said I can formulate the Trinity, I don't need to. — Apollodorus

You said:

So, there is no contradiction. It's just a matter of formulating it in a way that makes it acceptable to philosophy in general, not just to Christian philosophers. — Apollodorus

Was I wrong to assume that you were saying that you could do it? Was it someone else who tried to do so in your post? https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/543286

I have compiled the separate commentary posts in order that it may be read together:

1. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10914/platos-phaedo/p1


2. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/534860


3. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/535343


4. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/535924


5. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/536573


6. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/537114


7. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/537698


8. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/538481


9. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/539501


10. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/540733

In a few quick posts you have gone from claiming you can formulate the Trinity in a way that is acceptable to philosophy in general to throwing a tantrum.

Disagreeing with you in no way denies you the "right" to believe whatever you want to. Pointing to Christian sects that do not accept Trinitarianism is not an attack on Christianity.

Have you given up on trying to give a rational defense of the Trinity?

It's just a matter of formulating it in a way that makes it acceptable to philosophy in general — Apollodorus

But you have failed to do this.

What you call "facts" are just assertions. But those assertions do not provide a logical explanations of the Trinity.

There are two senses of "one". One, as in being in some way united, is not the same as being one and the same thing or being or ousia. To read this as 'one and the same' is contrary to Jesus' own words.

The "power of the most high" is not the same as what has that power. God and His power are not the same thing. They are not, despite the claim, homoousios, one being or substance.

There are, however, philosophers who, based on the limits of human knowledge and understanding, accept that there are things we cannot comprehend and are accepted by faith. If, however, philosophy is to be guided by reason, the Trinity cannot be made acceptable to philosophy,

But if he rejects that mind, body and god all are not responsible for guidance in the course of things, does he then claim Nature itself, is? I mean....what’s left? That, or the course of things isn’t guided at all, I guess — Mww

A mechanical system, a clockwork for example, does not need guidance. It is all just a matter of the shape of extended things in motion.