That's the reasoning behind the substitution argument given earlier. If in "Jesus is God" and "The Holy Spirit is God" the "is" is that of identity, then we ought be able to substitute and get "Jesus is the Holy Spirit". But Scripture won't let us. — Banno

The underlying idea that, "'Son' and 'God' are formally substitutable terms," requires an insane ignorance of Christian Trinitarianism. — Leontiskos

-

Are you now denying that Jesus is God? — Banno

You literally don't know what you mean when you say, "Jesus is God." You literally have no idea what you mean by "is," and now you are trying to leverage your ambiguous, bumper-sticker phrase to try to somehow shame me. :lol:

You literally don't know what you mean when you say, "Jesus is God." — Leontiskos

Well, I know what I mean... and the thread is now pretty much about trying to make sense of what you mean.

You literally have no idea what you mean by "is,"... — Leontiskos

I've now set out at length, not just how I am using "is", but how it is used in the general philosophical literature. If that's mistaken, it will not do for you just to make the accusation. You must set out where it goes astray.

I don't think it's me who has no idea.

Well, I know what I mean... Ands the thread is pretty much about trying to make sense of what you mean. — Banno

Tell me what you mean by 'is' and what you mean by 'God' and I will tell you whether the proposition "Jesus is God" is true.

Curiously, when I typed "Shield of the Trinity" into Google, the AI gave an overview. Part of the overview was that the diagram can be misleading insofar as some might see four entities (Father, Son, Spirit, God), and that they might therefore mistake "is" for a copula of identity. Ding ding!

-

Edit: Else, to avoid repeating myself:

Again, basing the entire discussion on a heuristic diagram which is famous for its oversimplification is not a good approach. Here is a clause from the Catechism of the Catholic Church that most closely approximates the same idea:

262 The Incarnation of God's Son reveals that God is the eternal Father and that the Son is consubstantial with the Father, which means that, in the Father and with the Father the Son is one and the same God.
— Catechism of the Catholic Church, #262

We could disambiguate the modern phrase, "The Son is God":

A. "The Son—in the Father and Spirit and with the Father and Spirit—is God"
B. "The Son—apart from the Father and the Spirit—is God"

(A) is theologically true whereas (B) is theologically false. The Son is never apart from the Father and the Spirit. What is happening in this thread is that (B) is being claimed as Catholic teaching, and this is false given that (B) is not Catholic teaching. (B) is a hostile translation of a highly compacted and oversimplified diagram.* In the contemporary colloquial idiom when Catholics speak of "God" as a sort of proper name they are talking about the Triune communion of persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. For Catholics the inner life of God is tri-personal, and this creates friction with the standard account of 'God' as mono-personal. The hostile translation (B) is presupposing 'God' as a mono-personal hypostasis, which would place the relata into the same genus and accord with a transitive property of identity. But anyone with knowledge of historic Christianity will know that this is a misrepresentation, that for Christians the generic "God" is triune rather than a single hypostasis, and that "Son" and "God" therefore belong to different genera. ↪Bob Ross was correct in saying that what is at stake is a predication rather than an identity relation. That is a remarkably accurate interpretation of Nicene Christianity. — Leontiskos

Tell me what you mean by 'is' and what you mean by 'God' and I will tell you whether the proposition, "Jesus is God" is true. — Leontiskos

For "is", see the extensive explanation just given, above. For "God", I have no firm opinions on the issue, and will happily copy your usage.

The elephant is still in your lap. Tell us what the "is" is for you.

Try this as your starting point for explaining "is."

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome[a] it.....

The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. — John 1:1-5, 14

The Word is Jesus. Jesus was with God, and Jesus was God. Explain it.

None of that has much to do with consensus. There is a Christian consensus on the Trinity, and it is based in the Councils of Nicea and Constantinople (325 and 381). — Leontiskos

98% of Christian denominations accept the Trinity from a doctrinal point of view, yet only 16% of Christians actually accept it. https://www.arizonachristian.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/AWVI-2025_03_Most-Americans-Reject-the-Trinity_FINAL_03_26_2025.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com

What this means is that there is a distinction between self avowing as a Christian and being a part of the institution of Christianity. Such is common among religions, particularly large ones.

I see myself less indoctrinated into analytic thought, particularly the Wittgensteinian approaches, and portraying this as a tension between old school and new school analytics and Christians defines a battleground that doesn't really exist.

I have always thought Christians were polytheistic, not as a criticism, but just a fact, not having any reason to particularly care to save them from it. I found Mormon belief clearer and just more forthright, but, again, there were no consequences for my view. I might as well have been studying the Greek gods.

My point here is that I can fully understand preposterous views, like a snake talking to Eve, but you're arguing from incoheremce. While you may say it all makes sense if you think about it long enough, it really doesn't.

This is the official view of the Catholic Church:

"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…” (CCC §234)

“The Trinity is a mystery of faith in the strict sense… We cannot come to know the Trinity by reason alone.” (CCC §237)

This is a direct nod to mysticism. While you might use reason to get at it somewhat, ultimately it's "a mystery."

I do note in the Creed that it refers to "we," which could simply mean human reason cannot be used as a basis to understand the Trinity, and it would follow also that it can't be used to reject the Trinity. We can neither come up with reasons to prove it exists or that it doesn't, but we accept on faith that it does.

If Christian, confirmation bias is dogmaticaly imposed and it eliminates the possibility of disproof and it entails belief regardless. You can understand then the feeling that there is no value in the debate. Your mind can't be changed by operation of law, so to speak.

You're therefore not in a battle with the analytics or the users of reason. You're in a battle specifically with non-Christians who reject your demand of acceptance of Church dogma and refuse to humbly accept their human rationality cannot comprehend divine rationality.

This therefore has nothing to do with secularism versus theism or analytics versus whatever. This is just whether one is willing to be Christian or not. If true Christians tied to doctrinal belief (98%) constitute the authentic Christians, then this is just about being Christian or not, and not about being an Analytic, a rationalist, a theist, or whatever.

My belief holds, for example, that death is mourned because the opportunity to perform God's law has ended. Heaven, in all its glory, is not sought after, but is brought to earth by good acts. We seek to bring God here, not to go to the heavens for God. It's a this worldly religion based upon what you do. It's not a religion centered around eternal rewards.

My point is that you probably find that profoundly wrong, and you may find issues within it unresolvable, but why should I pretend to care. I don't hold my views because they are logically consistent, empirically provable, or factually credible. I hold them for meaning, purpose, comfort, morality, sense of community, sense of beauty, utilitarian benefit, belonging, etc etc.

I guess I'm asking, why the grappling in the muck with the non-believers when you've got enough reason to believe even if some of their academic objections can't be readily overcome?

My belief holds, for example, that death is mourned because the opportunity to perform God's law has ended. Heaven, in all its glory, is not sought after, but is brought to earth by good acts. We seek to bring God here, not to go to the heavens for God. It's a this worldly religion based upon what you do. — Hanover

Excellent post.

I'm struck by how much this resembles the roughly Wittgensteinian view, that meaning, in life as in language, is what we do, the use to which we put our lives.

Heaven, in all its glory, is not sought after, but is brought to earth by good acts. We seek to bring God here, — Hanover

That is Catholic as well.
Faith without acts is dead. The kingdom of God is now.

If Christian, confirmation bias is dogmaticaly imposed and it eliminates the possibility of disproof and it entails belief regardless. You can understand then the feeling that there is no value in the debate. Your mind can't be changed by operation of law, so to speak. — Hanover

That’s not true at all.

Your added quote is a repetition of the problem, not an explanation. It remains that it is unclear how we are to make sense of "The Son—in the Father and Spirit and with the Father and Spirit—is God" in any way that is not prima facie incoherent, the addition of "in" and "with" notwithstanding.

This is actually a really excellent question and objection, given that my claim is that "The Son is God" is never used in early Christianity.

In the Greek of Jn 1:1 the first instance of 'God' includes the definite article whereas the second does not.

So if we use your NIV translation but include the articles and omit the capitalization, we get this:

"In the beginning was the word, and the word was with the god, and the word was god."

The reading that you and Banno see is, "...and the word was the god," which is on par with, "Jesus is the god."

In the Biblical mindset god (theos) is not a binary notion. For example, angels and demons would also be described with theos or similar terms (which have to do with generalized divinity). Nevertheless, the Hebrew authors still differentiate the one god or the creator god from lesser divinities. In the New Testament Greek this is usually done with the definite article ("the god"). This is why, for example, Jn 1:1 was not a knockdown argument against Arius, for Arius saw the Word as a divine being unequal with the one god.

So in that Jewish and Early Christian idiom, "the god" is the Father, whereas Jesus is the Son of God. This same idiom is present in the Nicene Creed as well as in current Catholic and Orthodox liturgy. "God" used hypostatically refers to the Father.

So the opening Collect of a Roman Catholic liturgy is conditional in the following way:

– If the prayer is directed to the Father: "Through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son, who lives and reigns with you in the unity of the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever";
– If it is directed to the Father, but the Son is mentioned at the end: "Who lives and reigns with you in the unity of the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever";
– If it is directed to the Son: "Who live and reign with God the Father in the unity of the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever." — Roman Missal, Third Edition

Now I bolded each instance of 'God'. You can see that instances 1, 2, and 4 are a Triune use of 'God', whereas 3 is the ancient hypostatic use of 'God' (the Father).

Another example is the opening Collect from the first Sunday of Advent (chosen at random):

Grant your faithful, we pray, almighty God,
the resolve to run forth to meet your Christ
with righteous deeds at his coming,
so that, gathered at his right hand,
they may be worthy to possess the heavenly Kingdom.
Through our lord Jesus Christ, your son,
who lives and reigns with you in the unity of the holy spirit,
one God, for ever and ever. — Roman Missal, Third Edition

Again, instance 1 is hypostatic whereas instance 2 is Triune (despite the fact that the Father is never without the Son and Spirit).

We cannot come to know the Trinity by reason alone.” — Hanover

I cannot come to know any person by reason alone. Not you, not Banno, not my children. I cannot come to know many things by reason alone.

But knowing is tied to judgment and reasoning, and believing, so everything I know is mixed with my reasoning. Reasoning is a part of being awake and thinking about anything.

I don't hold my views because they are logically consistent, empirically provable, or factually credible. — Hanover

Maybe not BECAUSE, they are logically consistent, provable. But you can probably formulate them into coherent sentences. You can probably correct people who assign belief to you that you do not hold - all of that takes discussion and reasoning.

why the grappling in the muck with the non-believers — Hanover

Because they asked. It’s as simple as that. And we are all in the exact same muck, here together. I hoped this would be a discussion, and it pretty much became one.

I'm struck by how much this resembles the roughly Wittgensteinian view — Banno

"Wittgenstein." Sounds like an MOT to me. https://jel.jewish-languages.org/words/319

Maybe not BECAUSE, they are logically consistent, provable. But you can probably formulate them into coherent sentences. You can probably correct people who assign belief to you that you do not hold - all of that takes discussion and reasoning. — Fire Ologist

I don't have a good explanation for theodicy. I admit that, yet I persist in my beliefs.

I cannot come to know any person by reason alone. Not you, not Banno, not my children. I cannot come to know many things by reason alone. — Fire Ologist

That does an injustice to the Trinity. The mystery of knowing the Trinity is not akin to the mystery of truly knowing the nuances of me, Banno, or a fine wine.

We don't have official declarations that we can't know each other. The Trinity is not just a routine complicated thing.

That's a very interesting and incisive post.

I don't hold my views because they are logically consistent, empirically provable, or factually credible. I hold them for meaning, purpose, comfort, morality, sense of community, sense of beauty, utilitarian benefit, belonging, etc etc. — Hanover

Nicely put.

Sounds like an MOT to me. — Hanover

It's the name, yes - although he was buried as a Catholic...

It's a mystery.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. — John 1:1-5, 14

The word was God is like “Superman can fly.” Or “Clark Kent is Superman.” It’s content. It’s about the world. It is what is, like “I am”.
The word was with God is like analytics. It’s the word about the word. This is the reason when God first told his name to Moses he said he was to be called “I am”. He is an analytic/ontological puzzle, in only his name.

Here is another point that I thought was interesting for people focused on language and analytics.

The Christian name of God is a whole story. “I am” was a name that could breathe. But because of Jesus we speak of God in the name of the Father, Son and the Spirit. It’s like a story playing out. When just saying his name.

It's the name, yes - although he was buried as a Catholic... — Banno

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1363461506070780#:~:text=Most%20accounts%20of%20Wittgenstein's%20life,.%20.%20.

Fine. You're saying John 1:1 is saying that the Word was with the Father, and the Word was divine.

My give a damn is now officially busted.

98% of Christian denominations accept the Trinity from a doctrinal point of view, yet only 16% of Christians actually accept it. https://www.arizonachristian.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/AWVI-2025_03_Most-Americans-Reject-the-Trinity_FINAL_03_26_2025.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com

What this means is that there is a distinction between self avowing as a Christian and being a part of the institution of Christianity. Such is common among religions, particularly large ones. — Hanover

I think it only means that not everyone studies Trinitarian theology.

I have always thought Christians were polytheistic, not as a criticism, but just a fact, not having any reason to particularly care to save them from it. I found Mormon belief clearer and just more forthright, but, again, there were no consequences for my view. I might as well have been studying the Greek gods. — Hanover

The Mormon view is clearer. But it isn't representative of Christianity.

My point here is that I can fully understand preposterous views, like a snake talking to Eve, but you're arguing from incoheremce. While you may say it all makes sense if you think about it long enough, it really doesn't. — Hanover

Well you presented an argument and I pointed out why your argument fails. Calling it "preposterous" but being unable to present a valid argument against it is not helpful.

This is the official view of the Catholic Church:

"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…” (CCC §234)

“The Trinity is a mystery of faith in the strict sense… We cannot come to know the Trinity by reason alone.” (CCC §237)

This is a direct nod to mysticism. While you might use reason to get at it somewhat, ultimately it's "a mystery." — Hanover

We've covered this ad nauseum in the thread. "Mystery" does not mean "preposterous" or "contradictory."

I do note in the Creed that it refers to "we," which could simply mean human reason cannot be used as a basis to understand the Trinity, and it would follow also that it can't be used to reject the Trinity. We can neither come up with reasons to prove it exists or that it doesn't, but we accept on faith that it does. — Hanover

No, that is incorrect. The Catholic view is that the Trinity is not contradictory, and that is why Catholics such as Augustine answer charges of contradiction, and they do it substantively. They do not say, "Oh it's a mystery so you can't argue against it by definition." That's not what Catholicism means by "mystery."

Look, our religious difference seems to have everything to do with the truth-aptness of religious claims. You always go back to the idea, "None of this is provable or disprovable or rational or irrational, and none of it really matters anyway (for there are no differences that arise on account of these beliefs), so let's all just stop arguing about it." I think that is deeply mistaken. If one has that view then a lackadaisical approach to religion is warranted, such as failing to distinguish Mormons from traditional Christians. But if one does not have that view then the lackadaisical approach is not warranted. In that case we would have to take the objections seriously and admit that religion is susceptible to rational objections. It seems like I think religion is susceptible to rational objections and you don't, and therefore we approach all of this from significantly different vantage points.

If Christian, confirmation bias is dogmaticaly imposed and it eliminates the possibility of disproof and it entails belief regardless. You can understand then the feeling that there is no value in the debate. Your mind can't be changed by operation of law, so to speak. — Hanover

I've explained why this claim fails quite a few times. Check out my posts towards the end of <this thread>.

You're therefore not in a battle with the analytics or the users of reason. You're in a battle specifically with non-Christians who reject your demand of acceptance of Church dogma and refuse to humbly accept their human rationality cannot comprehend divine rationality. — Hanover

This is an incorrect framing, and it evinces the same lackadaisical attitude that led you to interpret me to be saying the exact opposite of what I had said. You aren't reading or interpreting posts carefully, likely because you hold to an a priori position which says that none of this matters anyway.

This therefore has nothing to do with secularism versus theism or analytics versus whatever. This is just whether one is willing to be Christian or not. If true Christians tied to doctrinal belief (98%) constitute the authentic Christians, then this is just about being Christian or not, and not about being an Analytic, a rationalist, a theist, or whatever. — Hanover

Believe it or not, people don't just decide whether to be a Christian or not for no reason whatsoever. It has to do with other holdings, including things like rationalism, theism, atheism, etc.

My belief holds, for example, that death is mourned because the opportunity to perform God's law has ended. Heaven, in all its glory, is not sought after, but is brought to earth by good acts. We seek to bring God here, not to go to the heavens for God. It's a this worldly religion based upon what you do. It's not a religion centered around eternal rewards.

My point is that you probably find that profoundly wrong, and you may find issues within it unresolvable, but why should I pretend to care. I don't hold my views because they are logically consistent, empirically provable, or factually credible. I hold them for meaning, purpose, comfort, morality, sense of community, sense of beauty, utilitarian benefit, belonging, etc etc. — Hanover

I don't think religious positions are inadjudicable. I think your belief in the inadjudicability of religious positions is mistaken.

I guess I'm asking, why the grappling in the muck with the non-believers when you've got enough reason to believe even if some of their academic objections can't be readily overcome? — Hanover

Because a fallacious argument against Christianity impedes others from life in God.

Look, if you believe something is good and shareable, and someone gives a fallacious argument against it, then (ceteris paribus) you should point out the problems in the argument. If you don't do that then you don't care about others sharing in the good.

Obviously Judaism is not an evangelistic religion, and that's a big difference. But the idea that one should protect what is good and true is not a strange idea.

We don't have official declarations that we can't know each other. The Trinity is not just a routine complicated thing. — Hanover

Saying that the Trinity is a deep mystery says this as dogma “whether you understand it or not, this is the faith”. It doesn’t say “you can’t understand it, never will, and shouldn’t try.”

In fact, we are basically all here to know, love and serve God. Know is first. Knowing God means knowing he is Father, Son and Spirit. So knowing about the Trinity increases our knowledge of God; it doesn’t add a layer of mystery.

There is a bottomless pit of mystery who is our God. The Catholic Church says, don’t let that stop you, God has given us a ton of clues about who and what he is. Some of them are a philosopher’s and a scientists challenge, but so are many things and that is just one aspect…

“We cannot come to know the Trinity by reason alone.” (CCC §237)
That doesn’t mean we cannot know the Trinity.

I cannot come to know any person by reason alone. Not you, not Banno, not my children. I cannot come to know many things by reason alone. — Fire Ologist

That does an injustice to the Trinity. The mystery of knowing the Trinity is not akin to the mystery of truly knowing the nuances of me, Banno, or a fine wine.

We don't have official declarations that we can't know each other. The Trinity is not just a routine complicated thing. — Hanover

Nah, @Fire Ologist is right on the money. Here is the Catechism:

236 The Fathers of the Church distinguish between theology (theologia) and economy (oikonomia). "Theology" refers to the mystery of God's inmost life within the Blessed Trinity and "economy" to all the works by which God reveals himself and communicates his life. Through the oikonomia the theologia is revealed to us; but conversely, the theologia illuminates the whole oikonomia. God's works reveal who he is in himself; the mystery of his inmost being enlightens our understanding of all his works. So it is, analogously, among human persons. A person discloses himself in his actions, and the better we know a person, the better we understand his actions.

237 The Trinity is a mystery of faith in the strict sense, one of the "mysteries that are hidden in God, which can never be known unless they are revealed by God".58 To be sure, God has left traces of his Trinitarian being in his work of creation and in his Revelation throughout the Old Testament. But his inmost Being as Holy Trinity is a mystery that is inaccessible to reason alone or even to Israel's faith before the Incarnation of God's Son and the sending of the Holy Spirit. — Catechism of the Catholic Church

The inner life of others is also opaque to us unless they "let us in," and once they do that their outer works are made transparent. Granted, the Trinity is moreso, but the similarity is significant.

Sounds like an MOT to me. — Hanover

I want to be a member of the tribe. I hope I am.

There is one tribe now, but it still goes back to Abraham and is his as well.

I don't much care enough to read it - I probably should.

the similarity is significant. — Leontiskos

We come to know God but seeing him in others.
We come to do God’s work by doing good for others.



We can know the Trinity. We just have to put our calculators away for a bit. Someday the math has to work. Calculus and irrational numbers were new once. There is math of the Trinity, but that is less important and has not been revealed or figured out.

If I could explain the math of one God/three persons, /each who are God - would you believe in Jesus? It’s interesting to a philosopher and a theologian, but it hasn’t been laid bare yet. That’s my hope…

Fine. You're saying John 1:1 is saying that the Word was with the Father, and the Word was divine. — frank

Yep, and it's the same with predications of the Son. His nature/ousia is God/divine. But he is not "the god," where "the god" means something like the Father or else a generic god-person. The Nicene Creed says, "Consubstantial with the Father," which is the much more traditional phrase.

262 The Incarnation of God's Son reveals that God is the eternal Father and that the Son is consubstantial with the Father, which means that, in the Father and with the Father the Son is one and the same God. — Catechism of the Catholic Church, #262

Might leave you theists to sort this stuff out between yourselves.

The Trinity comes from a Jewish guy named Philo. He believed Greek philosophy actually came from the OT. He believed God is everything.

you theists — Banno

No difference between us - theists just suck at forming coherent sentences. We still believe in coherent sentences. We just find there are messages that are clear despite the incoherent sounding sentences and the analogies. Messages that are loud and clear.

Yep, and it's the same with predications of the Son. His nature/ousia is God/divine. But he is not "the god," where "the god" means something like the Father or else a generic god-person. The Nicene Creed says, "Consubstantial with the Father," which is the much more traditional phrase. — Leontiskos

Fine. The use of Logos tells that it's related to Plato, the Stoics, and Philo. The basic idea was that God is everything. That's what Plotinus believed. I'm happy to give you the victory over sorting out what Catholics believe.