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
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
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
some truth is entrusted to man by God. — Leontiskos
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
The problem here is that folks like Banno simply haven't asked the question of where the Trinitarian doctrines come from: — Leontiskos
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
The Jews don't put much divine stock in Jesus; he wasn't the Messiah according to them. — jorndoe
“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)
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
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
Agreed. There is a lot of misperception — Fire Ologist
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
A shame you agree with Leon's misrepresentations of my position. — Banno
You seem to think that I think that language cannot be about the world. — Banno
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
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
transitivity — Banno
Sure, but did you catch the other half, where viewing "God" and "hypostasis" as belonging to the same univocal genus is also erroneous? — Leontiskos
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.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
The transitive property of identity requires that the three relata belong to the same genus. — Leontiskos
But this does not mean that the doctrine is divorced from reason. — Leontiskos
I think we are still waiting for an explanation of what the "is" in the Trinity is, and why. — Banno
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
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
...and the issue is, how are we to make sense of this?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
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
And when we question that, the theologians point out, as Tim did earlier, that God transcends creation, and so any analogy will ultimately fail.We can only show you analogies. And then, in between them, you start to see the analytic reasoning and logic. — Fire Ologist
Yep. The honest response seems to be to admit that it doesn't make sense, but that it is true anyway.This is in keeping with the traditional Catholic perspective. — frank
Of course if A=B and A is a number, it follows that B is a number. — Banno
Now you could build that condition into your definition of "=" if you like... — Leontiskos
...but it amounts to the same failure; the same invalidity within your argument. — Leontiskos
And then you flee back to the diagram. It's not about the diagram, it's about the nature of "is". — Banno
...and the issue is, how are we to make sense of this? — Banno
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
And why do you need this special use of "is" just for God? — Banno
And you asre slipping back into attacking me rather than the point being made here. Bad form. — Banno
Bob has been explicit that he thinks the Trinity can be derived within natural philosophy — Banno
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
We can substitute "god" for "Jesus" and maintain the truth value of the assertion. — Banno
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
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
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
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
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.