I think the whole notion that "the Trinity strains credulity" is premised upon the contentious idea that the Trinity is discovered through natural reason — Leontiskos

I think we agree.

So the analytic empirical scientist could say “but what is this object called God with its eternal existence, and why would you need to find some new logic to know this God…that is all preposterous.” All the theist can say is “yes, but then why did you ask me about God and the Trinity - these objects were revealed to me — Fire Ologist

It only strains credulity when all you believe to be credible is what comes through natural reason. I don’t. I trust is many things that strain credulity. The substance of love and value of suffering.

The point to Banno and Frank is, just because their credulity may be strained, doesn’t mean all credulity must be strained for all thinkers.

So I think we agree.

And as far as “only analogy” can capture our understanding of the Trinity, yes, there are senses to “analogy” where this is true. So my point is, there are other senses to analogy where we must use reason and logic to identify how an analogy points out similarities and how it points out differences; analytic reasoning is subsumed by or contained in analogous explanation, and therefore to say “the Trinity can be expressed…only in terms of analogy” is to include and incorporate analytic reasoning within an overall analogical approach. I don’t think we must say “can be expressed…only in terms of analogy.” I think we should simply say “is expressed… in terms of analogy.” Leave room for reason to breathe in its expression, so to speak.

Again, I think we agree.

there are true things I can know about it [the Trinity] and false things I can logically demonstrate about it, now that it has been revealed to me. — Fire Ologist

Analytics would agree with this claim:

all that we know is … not adequately comprehensible as to its inner being; — Leontiskos

They should. Sounds like part of the method that an analytic would use to guard against essentialism, for instance.

We approach knowing, but never fully grasp.

May be said to fit with Wittgenstein as with knowledge of mystery.

, I'm not sure it's so ... "non-mysterious". ;)

It's not like scientific efforts to reconcile quantumatics and relativity, which are inherently open to something entirely different. Reality is to tell its own story, if you will.

The Jews don't put much divine stock in Jesus; he wasn't the Messiah according to them. Christians call Him God. Muslims say He was another prophet, superseded by Muhammad, and that Christianity has been polluted. I guess the Mormons roughly want to align with the Christians, but the Catholics (in particular) disown them. These are parts of the Abrahamic storylines and things that adherents believe and proclaim.

some truth is entrusted to man by God. — Leontiskos

Right.

Personally, I dont think the writers of the Bible figured this [the mysteries of the Trinity, sacrifice of the Son who is God, the word made flesh, the Eucharist, etc] out - they were inspired to write what makes no sense (at first) to say because it is what makes sense to God, and is for us, not from us — Fire Ologist

At least you are thinking. A good thing.

You seem to think that I think that language cannot be about the world. So I'll point out again that language games - moving blocks and counting apples - are inherently embedded in our interactions with the each other and with the things we find around us.

That the limits of our language are the limits of our world is not at all a restriction - there is literally nothing about which we cannot speak...

Hence analysing how we talk about the Trinity is engaging with what's being said about the Trinity.

The elephant in the room was that the Father is God, the Son is God, and yet the Father is not the Son. I pointed out, and there is general agreement here, that the "is" cannot be the is of identity, because while it shares reflexivity and symmetry with identity, it does not share transitivity. (Do i need togo over that again?)

The elephant in the lap of the Theist is to explain what the "is" is, given the constraints they have placed on it by accepting revelation and scripture and the Nicene Creed.

Now the Stanford General Catalogue of Variations on the Trinity lists quite a few suggestions. And that brings it's own problems, the arc I've mentioned - this looks to be ad hoc rationalisation, explaining away rather than explaining.

I think we are still waiting for an explanation of what the "is" in the Trinity is, and why.

I have the impression that you, Olo, might be willing to accept it as a mystery, as an article of faith rather than of reason. If that is so, then we perhaps have nothing left to argue here.

The problem here is that folks like Banno simply haven't asked the question of where the Trinitarian doctrines come from: — Leontiskos

Agreed. There is a lot of misperception:
- the OP said God became man and died on a a cross to save us…from his own wrath. The “from his own wrath” misunderstands what we are being saved from so set up misunderstanding of why dying on a cross might make sense.

There are others…

A shame you agree with Leon's misrepresentations of my position.

It's not as if the problem's not widley recognised:

After its formulation and imperial enforcement towards the end of the fourth century, this sort of Christian theology reigned more or less unchallenged. But before this, and again in post-Reformation modernity, the origin, meaning, and justification of trinitarian doctrine has been repeatedly disputed. — SEP: Trinity

I'm not sure it's so ... "non-mysterious". ;) — jorndoe

I hope I haven't said that the Trinity is non-mysterious?

The Jews don't put much divine stock in Jesus; he wasn't the Messiah according to them. — jorndoe

Well the first Christians were all Jews. Beyond that, there are different lines of Jewish expectation and prophecy, and the ones which converge on a figure like Jesus actually exclude the unanimity that modern folk seem to expect.

The Christian narrative is not as simple as some would have it:

“Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s foes will be those of his own household. He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and he who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for my sake will find it. — Matthew 10 (RSV)

The Christian narrative is not as simple as some would have it: — Leontiskos

:rofl:


Indeed.

All the theist can say is “yes, but then why did you ask me about God and the Trinity - these objects were revealed to me — Fire Ologist

:up:

And as far as “only analogy” can capture our understanding of the Trinity, yes, there are senses to “analogy” where this is true. So my point is, there are other senses to analogy where we must use reason and logic to identify how an analogy points out similarities and how it points out differences; — Fire Ologist

Right.

Agreed. There is a lot of misperception — Fire Ologist

Yeah, and I think a lot of it has to do with a kind of anthropocentrism, where one sees themselves and their own age as the center of the universe. On that conception everything is measured against our current form, and so much the worse for anything that doesn't "measure up." Thus there is no possibility of being measured by something greater than us. No possibility, for example, of being dwarfed by greater intelligences.

Edit: The other general problem is that Trinitarian theology requires the most careful linguistic distinctions, and the objectors are basically using careless or ambiguous words at every turn. For example, pretending that the symbol (or rather function) "=" has some precise meaning, or that "is" is an uncomplicated copula, or that 'incomprehensible' and 'inconceivable' mean the same thing. I could go on. It is but one instance of the sort of lazy critique where one expects their interlocutor to do all of the work, and where one purports to be knowledgeable, ignorant, and critical of some particular thesis, all at the same time.

we are still waiting for an explanation of what the "is" in the Trinity is, and why.

I have the impression that you, Olo, might be willing to accept it as a mystery, as an article of faith rather than of reason. If that is so, then we perhaps have nothing left to argue here. — Banno

I think there is an explanation of the many instances of “is” in the Triune God. I can provide some of them. Count and Leon have provided some.

But I don’t think I, or Bob Ross, or Leon, or anyone, would have thought of God as one God in the name (not names) of the Father, Son and Spirit who are three distinct persons - this is divine revelation, inspired words whose meaning on a surface level is mysterious. I don’t see them as contradictory, but if someone didn’t believe in any such thing as any God or revealed word, then I can see why they would only see contradiction.

So you characterized my position on the Trinity as one I “accept it as a mystery, as an article of faith rather than of reason.” That is not what is going on in my mind, or not how I would say it. It is close, but not precise.

I do believe there is one God who is three persons; I also believe there is reasoning that explains this. I also see that I had to accept all of this through faith, because it is mysterious. But again, my reason allows me deeper and better understanding of this (how the Trinity relates to the substance of love, and knowing, but I digress), so I would not simply end my
position on the issue as “it’s a mystery; believe it or don’t if you want.” There is much more to say besides “mystery” about the Trinity and it takes reason and logic to say things.

A shame you agree with Leon's misrepresentations of my position. — Banno

There are a lot of caricatures of what the faith is - bad starting points for the analysis and the questions.

You seem to think that I think that language cannot be about the world. — Banno

It’s not that it cannot be about the world, it’s that what it says about the world is illusion or is self-referential as part of a game constructed on top of the world, but not really about the world.

language games - moving blocks and counting apples - are inherently embedded in our interactions with the each other and with the things we find around us. — Banno

Yes, but, as soon as one talks about the block as if it could exist before one said “block”, the discussion becomes not about the block, but about how language doesn’t talk about such things. There are no blocks, until there are “blocks”.

So you characterized my position on the Trinity as one I “accept it as a mystery, as an article of faith rather than of reason.” That is not what is going on in my mind, or not how I would say it. It is close, but not precise.

I do believe there is one God who is three persons; I also believe there is reasoning that explains this. I also see that I had to accept all of this through faith, because it is mysterious. But again, my reason allows me deeper and better understanding of this (how the Trinity relates to the substance of love, and knowing, but I digress), so I would not simply end my
position on the issue as “it’s a mystery; believe it or don’t if you want.” There is much more to say besides “mystery” about the Trinity and it takes reason and logic to say things. — Fire Ologist

Good stuff. :up:

For example, for Aquinas the doctrine of the Trinity is an article of faith, and what this means is that faith is a necessary condition for belief in the Trinity. For Aquinas, one does not simply figure out the fact of the Trinity all by their lonesome. But this does not mean that the doctrine is divorced from reason.

If an atheist were really interested in the theology of revelation, they would want to start thinking about how an intellectually superior being would reveal things to an intellectually inferior being, namely things which exceed the rational comprehension of the intellectually inferior being. (Note that I am focusing on the "intellectual" for the sake of simplicity.)

I think we are still waiting for an explanation of what the "is" in the Trinity is, and why. — Banno

I think that is the crux of the discussion! I am waining too!

I am waining too! — MoK

Yep, definitely waning. Nearly done here. :wink:

I think we are still waiting for an explanation of what the "is" in the Trinity is, and why.
— Banno
I think that is the crux of the discussion! I am waining too! — MoK

I was thinking the same thing. Why is there silence on that question?

transitivity — Banno

Again:

Sure, but did you catch the other half, where viewing "God" and "hypostasis" as belonging to the same univocal genus is also erroneous? — Leontiskos

The transitive property of identity requires that the three relata belong to the same genus. Yet a hypostasis and an ousia obviously do not belong to the same genus. Your argument is invalid.

Bob has been explicit that he thinks the Trinity can be derived within natural philosophy - without revelation. He pretty much claims, way back, what you say he doesn't.

I gather that you, Tim and Leon disagree, preferring the traditional approach.

I think there is an explanation of the many instances of “is” in the Triune God. I can provide some of them. Count and Leon have provided some. — Fire Ologist

One of the issues is indeed the number of such explanations. There's a list in the SEP article of something like a dozen or so differing accounts.

Let's be very specific about the problem. When folk say that Jesus is god, they mean that when they say that Jesus died on the cross, it was god who died on the cross. We can substitute "god" for "Jesus" and maintain the truth value of the assertion. And when they say that they are imbued with Holy Spirit, they mean that they are imbued with god - substitution works here, as well.

But it is not true that they are imbued with Jesus; becasue Jesus and the Holy Spirit are not the same person. And it is not true that the Holy Spirit died on the cross.

Leon's elaborate distinctions between essence/person, analogical/univocal predication, etc. don't address this practical point about how the language actually functions. And you, Olo, don't wish to appeal to pure mystery here since you "believe there is reasoning that explains this".

Trinitarians use identity as it suits them, but drop it when it is inconvenient. The very epitome of "ad hoc".

You seem to think that an explanation. It isn't.

The transitive property of identity requires that the three relata belong to the same genus. — Leontiskos

The transitivity of identity doesn't require relata to "belong to the same genus" - it's a purely logical principle. If A=B and B=C, then A=C, regardless of what kind of things A, B, and C are.

You a e simply using technical theological terminology to avoid addressing a straightforward logical point.

But this does not mean that the doctrine is divorced from reason. — Leontiskos

Exactly. Nothing, that we say we know (so nothing that we say we believe because all things we believe we also know) is divorced from reason.

I think we are still waiting for an explanation of what the "is" in the Trinity is, and why. — Banno

We can only show you analogies. And then, in between them, you start to see the analytic reasoning and logic. From there you can attempt your own analogy. If you nail an analogy, maybe you have something.
And the full “is” and explanation is something approached asymptotically. There is always more to say and clarify.

The Trinity is like two people in love. The love is bigger than each one, but also completely known and found in each one separately. (You don’t have to believe love is a real thing, but if you do believe in the lib you may share with a child, or a spouse, that is like the life of God.)

We are not going to explain away the fact that one plus one plus one equals three, and three does not equal one, but that one person is fully God, the other person if fully God, and the other person is fully God, but though there are three persons, there is but one God. If you are looking for some explanation that provides a new math, that may never come.

If such explanations are all you are after and all you think are worth discussing and all the world of language has to offer, I think you are just being rebellious against your own experience. Life is full of absurdity and mystery and seeming contradiction - there is more to say than “that’s absurd.”

But imagine a single being who is the one God. This being’s personality is to give. Just is. When God gives, he gives everything. So when he gives the Son is begotten and this son has everything that was the fathers so this son is God. But this son, as with the father, is therefore a giver. The son does not take any credit for being God, but gives it all to the father, so much so that between the father and the son is the same spirit of giving, and so much so this spirit is God.

Now imaging this happens all at once in an instant - father giving all to the son who gives all to the father such that the All that is given is the God who is the father and the son.

The Trinity is analogous to something like that.

This is full of things to analyze and subject to scrutiny and refine and correct - all steps requiring reason.

The transitivity of identity doesn't require relata to "belong to the same genus" - it's a purely logical principle. If A=B and B=C, then A=C, regardless of what kind of things A, B, and C are. — Banno

No, that's incorrect. The presupposition when using the transitive property of identity is that each of the relata are the same kind of thing (i.e. belong to the same genus). So if A, B, and C are all numbers, then we can apply the transitive property of identity to them. But if A is a number, B is an animal, and C is a solar system, then we cannot.

Now you could build that condition into your definition of "=" if you like, but it amounts to the same failure; the same invalidity within your argument.

Again, the deeper problem is that you are relying on a heuristic diagram that doesn't try to be theologically precise. One way to remedy such confusions is to talk about Godhead instead of "God," to remind ourselves that what is at stake is an ousia.

The same sort of error is present in claims like this one:

When folk say that Jesus is god, they mean that when they say that Jesus died on the cross, it was god who died on the cross. — Banno

When you say, "...it was god," you mean, "it was the god-person," and this is precisely what is not meant when a Christian says that Jesus is God. In fact the theologically precise Christian says that Jesus is the Son of God.

What rot.

Of course if A=B and A is a number, it follows that B is a number.

That's not about numbers, but about identity. it's not about genus, but individuality.

And then you flee back to the diagram. It's not about the diagram, it's about the nature of "is".

When you say, "...it was god," you mean, "it was the god-person," and this is precisely what is not meant when a Christian says that Jesus is God. In fact the theologically precise Christian says that Jesus is the Son of God. — Leontiskos

...and the issue is, how are we to make sense of this?

We are not going to explain away the fact that one plus one plus one equals three, and three does not equal one, but that one person is fully God, the other person if fully God, and the other person is fully God, but though there are three persons, there is but one God. If you are looking for some explanation that provides a new math, that may never come. — Fire Ologist

This is in keeping with the traditional Catholic perspective. The Trinity is a mystery beyond human understanding. You alluded earlier to John 1:1. Religion scholars identify that as Logos mysticism. It's cool stuff.

We can only show you analogies. And then, in between them, you start to see the analytic reasoning and logic. — Fire Ologist

And when we question that, the theologians point out, as Tim did earlier, that God transcends creation, and so any analogy will ultimately fail.

This is in keeping with the traditional Catholic perspective. — frank

Yep. The honest response seems to be to admit that it doesn't make sense, but that it is true anyway.

Of course if A=B and A is a number, it follows that B is a number. — Banno

Then you've done what I said:

Now you could build that condition into your definition of "=" if you like... — Leontiskos

And also as I said:

...but it amounts to the same failure; the same invalidity within your argument. — Leontiskos

Your proposition "Jesus = God(head)" is false, given that there is not equality between things of different genera. This is precisely what I said above.

And then you flee back to the diagram. It's not about the diagram, it's about the nature of "is". — Banno

Which, again, comes precisely from the diagram. Your continual insistence makes no sense, "It's not about the diagram, it's about that part of the diagram that says 'is'!" That part of the diagram is obviously a part of the diagram.

...and the issue is, how are we to make sense of this? — Banno

By reading the smallest bit of theology to inform yourself before jumping to attack that which you do not understand?

The Trinitarian term "God(head)" is not a hypostasis; it is an ousia. Christians do not believe that Jesus = God(head).

Oh, Leon. Yes, that's how "=" works. And yes, it follows that you cannot be using "is" in "Jesus is God" to mean "=", and hence you must be using it a different way.

So, how are you using it? How does it work? And why do you need this special use of "is" just for God? Why is this special use not ad hoc self-justification?

And you are slipping back into attacking me rather than the point being made here. Bad form.

I probably should just let Leon keep digging the hole he is standing in.

Oh, Leon. Yes, that's how "=" works. And yes, it follows that you cannot be using "is" in "Jesus is God" to mean "=", and hence you must be using it a different way.

So, how are you using it? How does it work? And why do you need this special use of "is" just for God? Why is this special use not ad hoc self-justification? — Banno

So first, replace every instance of "you" with "the diagram." Second, revisit my initial claim that your focus on the diagram is a dead end.

And why do you need this special use of "is" just for God? — Banno

Your invalid use of the transitive property of identity is not only applicable to God(head). Failing to keep the relata of the same genus is always invalid.

And you asre slipping back into attacking me rather than the point being made here. Bad form. — Banno

Telling you that you should inform yourself before attacking that which you don't understand is attacking you? It's not attacking you, and it's pointing to the real problem here. That problem is why I was so averse to even entering this thread in the first place.

@Fire Ologist - This ^^^ is a good example wherein one shows that a charge of contradiction is false. An argument that the Trinity is unreasonable is shown to fail, yet without sacrificing the Trinity as an article of faith. The objection objectively fails, and yet the doctrine of the Trinity remains "unerectable" via natural reason.

Bob has been explicit that he thinks the Trinity can be derived within natural philosophy — Banno

I know he said that. I disagreed with him.

When folk say that Jesus is god, they mean that when they say that Jesus died on the cross, it was god who died on the cross. — Banno

Yes.

We can substitute "god" for "Jesus" and maintain the truth value of the assertion. — Banno

Well, yeah, but… Jesus became a man first, and then died on the cross. The father didn’t do that. So it is true to say God died on the cross, because Jesus is God, not because the Father is God. So yeah…

And when they say that they are imbued with Holy Spirit, they mean that they are imbued with god - substitution works here, as well. — Banno

Yes.

But it is not true that they are imbued with Jesus; becasue Jesus and the Holy Spirit are not the same person. And it is not true that the Holy Spirit died on the cross. — Banno

Well, Jesus’ spirit is the Holy Spirit. Through him, with him, in him, in the unity of the Holy Spirit…
I agree it is not true that anyone has Jesus qua Jesus in them, but they may have Jesus’ Holy Spirit in them.
And I don’t know how the Holy Spirit attended to the death of Jesus of the cross. The Holy Spirit may have in fact been with him as he died in the cross and maybe so intimately that the Holy Spirit died with him, and maybe the Father as well, in a sense. But I think we start to misunderstand what the Trinity is and how the three are united and that this eternal union is God. They are immediately not each other and given over to each other completely. It is love; that is eternal life for each as one.

And you, Olo, don't wish to appeal to pure mystery here since you "believe there is reasoning that explains this".

Trinitarians use identity as it suits them, but drop it when it is inconvenient. The very epitome of "ad hoc". — Banno

I think the way I maintain some rationality is first equate temporality, like a timeline, with linear analytic reasoning (like you say is “how the language actually functions”) Then equate eternity with the present moment, right now, and only now, but the same now eternally - as if repeating but already repeating what was exactly. We string out God, father, son, spirit, and unity and difference in the timeline and things start to contradict one another. This is the way language works.
But what we are talking about here is an eternal thing - at once the father, son and shared spirit is God. In that present moment, there is no room for contradiction - just diction. And god said… and the word was with god… and the word was god…

So you don’t need to accept my answer for “is” but it is an eternal thing”is” not a temporal “is”. (The temporal “is” came later, by analogy, and led to the son becoming a man, dying and rising again before our eyes to teach us what it is like to be God… to love with no bounds…

The Trinity is a mystery beyond human understanding. You alluded earlier to John 1:1. Religion scholars identify that as Logos mysticism. It's cool stuff. — frank

There is plenty of mysticism to be had here. But, although linear, more readily analytic reasoning, may seem remote in some of these sentences, it is not non-existent, and things like this are not just mysterious. It is not beyond human understanding, in my view (despite how it sounds incompressible, I see a solid thing there to understand - just a complex solid thing there that we will ever approach enclosed understanding…