1642? I don't think you know your Descartes. I don't know what a 'dissociative' problem is, but whatever it may be I fail to see its relevance.
I have no reason to think she has divested herself of power, for I have every reason to think reasons exist. And reasons cannot exist absent her. And so long as she is the source of all reasons then she is omnipotent. Now that argument was, of course, completely wasted on you. All of this is, isn't it?

You are saying that because three Gospels don't mention Jesus's divinity the religion doesn't stand up to scrutiny — Gregory

Correct. @Fooloso4 uses irrational arguments and totally contradicts himself.

1. He is quoting Ehrman who claims that the Gospels are "forgeries".

2. He is quoting the Gospels to "prove" that Jesus didn't call himself the Son of God.

If that isn't self-contradictory and irrational, I don't know what is.

By the way, are you quite sure you are a Christian and not something else?

1) What Ehrman may or may not have said elsewhere has nothing to do with what he said in the material quoted. And as I said several times, what he said is supported by a significant number of Christian scholars.

2) What is at issue, as you know, is not whether Jesus called himself son of God, but whether the Gospels say that he is God. Nowhere in Paul or Matthew or Luke or Mark do we find such a claim. Given the importance of this claim its absence cannot simply be ignored. In John we find ambiguous claims that can be interpreted either way.

The question of whether Jesus is God arose here out of the question of whether there is a rational explanation of the Trinity. You say there is but you have not been able to provide such an explanation. You have done nothing more than kick up a lot of dust and make ad hominem attacks in hopes of obscuring and deflecting this inability.

If, as a matter of faith, one accepts the Trinity, then that is, as far as I'm concerned a personal matter. If, however, one claims that it is a rational doctrine then it is no longer simply a matter of faith and must be shown to be rational.

What is at issue, as you know, is not whether Jesus called himself son of God, but whether the Gospels say that he is God. — Fooloso4

lol You do make me laugh, to be honest. If I were you, I would be quiet and just retire gracefully.

1. You claimed that Jesus did not call himself the Son of God.

2. You are quoting non-existent statements in the Gospels to "prove" your point.

3. You are quoting Ehrman who claims that the Gospels are "forgeries".

Do you realize the self-contradiction and total lack of logic of claiming to "prove" something on the basis of non-existent statements in "forged" texts? Are you well?

Here is your own statement:

Jesus would have been appalled to find that he was deified. He made a clear distinction between himself, a human being and God. — Fooloso4

1. You have zero evidence to support that statement.

2. You can’t use the Gospels as evidence (a) because there is nothing in the texts to support your claim and (b) because according to the anti-Christian “eminent scholar” Ehrman whom you keep quoting, the Gospels are “forgeries”!

The Gospels clearly say:

"For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God. John" 5:18

"The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, “I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?” The Jews answered Him, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.”" John 10:30-33

Edit If the Gospels had been "forgeries" trying to portray Jesus as God, then the texts would have been full of references to that. But you are saying that there aren't any. This actually suggests that they are not forgeries. And there is no evidence that they are.

1) Revisiting old issues in order to avoid the one at hand. The issue was what the term "son of God" meant in its Jewish context versus its pagan Christian context.

2) No, I am not able to quote non-existent statements. I am pointing to the conspicuous absence of any claim that Jesus is God in these Gospels. That does not prove anything. It does, however, raise a question you are doing your best to avoid. Why would they be silent on such an important claim?

3) Repeating the same accusation, one that he have failed to cite, has nothing to do with the truth of what was quoted. It is just evasiveness.

1) The idea that God would have a begotten son is a pagan idea completely foreign to Judaism.

2) Again, where does he say this? Even a forgery has content that can be examined. Upon examination it is clear that the Gospels say nothing about Jesus being God.

Each Gospel is a collection of different eye-witness reports, hence the difference between them.

If they had been forgeries, there would have been just one text by one author. This is evidently not the case.

The claim that the Gospels are "forgeries" is totally unfounded and as I said, if they are forgeries, you can't quote them on statements by Jesus or their absence, because to do so would be illogical and absurd.

Using quotes from John does not show that Paul, Mark, Matthew, and Luke contain claims that Jesus is God.

1. Using non-existent statements from Mark, Matthew and Luke does not prove your claim.

2. Why would anyone forge four different scriptures instead of just one?

Each Gospel is a collection of different eye-witness reports, hence the difference between them. — Apollodorus

With the exception of John, there is no difference between them with regard to the claim that Jesus is God. None of them make such a claim.

Instead of addressing the issues at hand you attempt to divert attention to something you claim Ehrman said. You have not cited where he said this and have not said why it is relevant to the truth of the quoted material.

You have not cited where he said this — Fooloso4

You haven't given me a chance because you keep frantically posting comments as if that's going to somehow "save" you.

Anyway, Ehrman is your “eminent expert” whom you keep quoting and you don’t know what he says about the Gospels???

His claims are a well-known fact:

Forged (book) – Wikipedia

Have you been living under a rock in the Gobi desert for the past eighty years? Or are you ignorant about who your own "expert witnesses" are and what they are claiming?

Did you read what the Wiki article says?

Although it has long been recognised that numerous books of the New Testament bear names of authors who are unlikely to have written them, it has often been said that it was an accepted practice in antiquity for a writer to attribute his work to a well-known figure from the past, or a teacher who has greatly influenced him.

Ehrman's contention is that what are referred to as "pseudepigraphs" or falsely attributed works, was not an accepted practice in antiquity. That they would have regarded false attribution as forgery.

This has nothing at all to do with the content of the books.

Ehrman's contention is that what are referred to as "pseudepigraphs" or falsely attributed works, was not an accepted practice in antiquity. That they would have regarded false attribution as forgery. — Fooloso4

Not at all. The article says:

"Falsely attributed writings are often referred to as "pseudepigraphs" but Ehrman maintains that the more honest term is "forgery". The book posits that 11 or more books out of the 27 books of the Christian New Testament canon were written as forgeries."

So, he is implying that forgery was involved in the writing of early Christian texts.

You yourself are implying that the Gospels are forgeries by claiming that the Gospel of John was forged to show that Jesus was the Son of God.

Anyway, whichever way you turn it, you can't prove your case. You are wasting your time.

Descartes wrote his five meditations and Replies to Objections in 1641 and published them the next year. Ive read them many times in addition to 1) Rules and 2) the Discourse, both in the Great Books edition from the library. Lol you don't know Descartes

So, he is implying that forgery was involved in the writing of early Christian texts. — Apollodorus

He is not implying anything. That the writings were falsely attributed is not in question. What he is contesting is whether false attribution was an accepted practice in antiquity.

You attempted to discredit Ehrman. The following makes it clear that you did not understand what was at issue.

Why would anyone forge four different scriptures instead of just one? — Apollodorus

It is not that someone forged these works. Their authenticity is not in question.

So now that the dust has settled we still see the problems you have been evading.

It is not that someone forged these works. Their authenticity is not in question. — Fooloso4

These are Ehrman’s own words:

“In my book, I do describe the whole range of motives for producing forgeries. Today profit is the most prominent motive. But that really wasn’t the motive I’m describing in the early Christian world. These forged books were promoted mainly because people wanted their voices to be heard in shaping Christianity—so they would put a famous name on their work. They weren’t doing this to take money to the bank. They wanted to influence Christianity.”

“I’m far from standing alone in saying, for example, that Paul didn’t write a lot of the epistles that claim they’re from Paul. Many other Bible scholars have made this point over the years. But I am arguing that this practice really was forgery and was condemned, if people realized it was happening.”

Interview: Bart Ehrman on Forged & Apocryphal Gospels

So, according to Ehrman, “people forged books to influence Christianity”.

Even you are denying the authenticity of the Gospel of John.

Paul didn't write those letters. It was some other guy named Paul.

So, according to Ehrman, “people forged books to influence Christianity”. — Apollodorus

The claim of misattribution is not an accusation that begins with Ehrman. What he is saying is that if people had known who actually wrote the book they would regard it differently. The issue is whether this was an accepted practice and were people who read these works aware that these works were not written by the person named as author.

It seems clear that people were not aware because even today many are not aware of misattribution.

In any case, the question of authorship does not change what is and is not said in the Gospels.

Even you are denying the authenticity of the Gospel of John. — Apollodorus

I do not know who was the author of this work. What is known is that it differs markedly from the synoptic gospels and the writings of Paul. This difference is not insignificant, and yet you are doing everything you can to avoid addressing this.

As to the question of proof. I am not trying to prove anything. I am pointing to the evidence in the books and evaluating it. Again, you have avoided doing this.

As to the question of proof. I am not trying to prove anything. I am pointing to the evidence in the books and evaluating it. — Fooloso4

If you are not trying to prove anything, then what are you trying to prove with your comments?

1. Ehrman regards Acts as a forgery because he sees contradictions between how the relationship between Peter and Paul are presented in it and how Paul speaks of Peter in his undisputed letters (p. 204)

Then he says:

“the one thing we know best about James of Jerusalem is that he was concerned that Jewish followers of Jesus continue to keep the requirements of Jewish law. But this concern is completely and noticeably missing in this letter. This author, claiming to be James, is concerned with people doing ‘good deeds’; he is not at all concerned with keeping kosher, observing the Sabbath and Jewish festivals, or circumcision. His concerns are not those of James of Jerusalem” (198).

So, Ehrman draws conclusions about James on the basis of Acts which he regards as “forgery”! A bit like yourself, actually.

2. Ehrman says:

“The New Testament emerged out of these conflicts, as one of the Christian groups won the arguments and decided which books would be included in Scripture. Other books representing other points of view and also attributed to the apostles of Jesus were not only left out of Scripture; they were destroyed and forgotten. As a result, today, when we think of early Christianity, we tend to think of it only as it has come down to us in the writings of the victorious party. Only slowly, in modern times, have ancient books come to light that support alternative views, as they have turned up in archaeological digs and by pure serendipity, for example, in the sands of Egypt.” (p. 183)

So, he suggests that the Gospels were just a few among many mutually contradictory Christian books which, on the face of it, implies that the authenticity of the Gospels’ content is questionable.

There are many other problems with Ehrman’s analysis of Christian texts as pointed out in this excellent review of his book:

Review of Bart Ehrman's book "Forged: Writing in the Name of God"
https://www.risenjesus.com/review-of-bart-ehrmans-book-forged-writing-in-the-name-of-god

Even the book's title "Writing in the Name of God" is intentionally suggestive and implies forgery.

You have turned a thread about the Trinity into an attempt to discredit a highly regarded Biblical scholar. I am going to listen to my better angels and will stop responding to your endless evasiveness.

You have turned a thread about the Trinity into an attempt to discredit a highly regarded Biblical scholar. — Fooloso4

The OP is indeed about the Trinity. But you decided to butt in and insert weasel words about Jesus not being the Son of God, etc. after which you adduced “proof” from your “eminent expert witness” Ehrman to promote your pet theories about Christian history.

Unfortunately for you, Ehrman turns out to be as slippery a fellow as a well-oiled eel whose every other sentence obliquely implies that the Christian texts are forgeries, i.e. texts written by unknown people in the name of others (or "in the name of God") for the purpose of “influencing Christianity”.

You yourself are implying, without any evidence whatsoever, that the Gospel of John is a forgery intended to falsely present Jesus as the Son of God.

You are claiming that the absence of references to Jesus as the Son of God in the other three Gospels “proves” that Jesus was not the Son of God.

By your own logic, the absence of references to Jesus in Jewish scriptures should be taken as “proof” that Jesus didn’t exist. But this you deny and thereby you contradict yourself.

These are your own words:

John 1:49 affirms that he was a rabbi. The fact that it also calls him the son of God does not mean John denied he was a rabbi. — Fooloso4

The counter-argument is that the fact that John also calls him a rabbi does not mean John denied that he was the Son of God. On the contrary, it expressly says that he was.

And, of course, none of your arguments have anything to do with the Trinity.

1641. Not 1642. (And you try and cover up your mistake by saying he wrote it in 1641 and published it the following year - Haha, er, no. It was published in 1641, not 1642. And it was the product of many years work - he wrote it very slowly - he didn't bang it out in a year). And to make matters worse hou get the number of meditations wrong too - it is 6, not 5! You don't know your Descartes. You clearly don't understand him - I mean, you don't grasp the meaning of most of my posts and attribute to me views not found in anything I've written, so we can expect you to do the same with D too....and you have. At no point does he confuse God with himself - he explains in detail why he is not God. Did you miss that bit? He's doubting, yes? An omniscient being wouldn't doubt. So he can know he's not God. Sheesh.
Anyway, you still - still - have not provided any argument to show how being a simple entity somehow explains the trinity. You just said some confused and nauseating things about love.

So just to recap: you don't know your Descartes (for everything you have said about him is wrong, from publication dates to number of meditations to substantial philosophical content - and you don't have any argument for anything and you are a christian who is actually a confused Buddhist. Good job!!

Divine love is nauseating? Maybe. But Deism leads to atheism while the Trinity as an idea can withstand doubts. If someone believes in God it is most natural to believe God didn't just love himself for all eternity but is, instead, a family of persons in complete simplicity.

Descartes wrote his Meditations and published them in the Dutch lands where he lived in 1941. He republished it in French, instead of Latin, WITH the Replies to objections in Paris, 1942. That is the edition I read.

And you have to understand how Descartes really thought, not just what his words say. The cogito can never satisfy completely with regard to doubts, like deism cannot satisfy thought. Our minds are made for truth, but Descartes ultimate escape from doubt was the ontological argument which he presented in a form which made his non-local mind (as he believed) into the deity. He thought his ideas were intimately united with God such that the thought of him assured Descartes that divinity was real. But he thought his true identity was not in space and so God, as Descartes idea, was really a phantom of his own self, although he his this from himself

I don't see how you cannot believe you are a person of flesh and bones

No, the French version was 1647, not er, 1942. And your version only has 5 meditations??

Well I've read otherwise and I know he went to Paris to discuss his ideas in 1642 with the intellectual elite. He wrote his physics book next and then his one on passions before he died.

Anyways, maybe you are more Platonic than I give credit for. I far prefer Aristotle to Plato though. Dust we are and to dust we shall return. Death is not saying bye to your body, but the experiencing of death

Oh youre right, there is a 6th meditation. The one explaining pain and God's design. The Meditations was the first philosophy book I ever read

I don't see how you cannot believe you are a person of flesh and bones — Gregory

Well there's a lot you don't see. Perhaps if you tried to follow an argument and respected reason more you'd see. Or you could try reading Descartes.

I don't see how you can possibly have gotten this:

but Descartes ultimate escape from doubt was the ontological argument which he presented in a form which made his non-local mind (as he believed) into the deity. — Gregory

from reading Descartes. I suppose if you've arrogantly allowed yourself the luxury of ignoring what he atctually said -

you have to understand how Descartes really thought, not just what his words say — Gregory

- then you can get anything you jolly well like from it.

The Meditations was the first philosophy book I ever read — Gregory

And which was the first one you understood?

Divine love is nauseating? Maybe — Gregory

That's not what I said. I said you wrote some nauseating things about love. You seem to have serious difficulty respecting what people actually say. Maybe you should try reading people's actual words and not deciding in advance that you understand them already.

Why on earth do you think God loves you? Odd. You live in ignorance in a dangerous world - you think someone who loves you would do that to you? What a remarkable but horribly self serving lack of insight you show. When someone gives you the bird, do you think they're telling you you're no. 1 or something?

Anyway, I am still waiting for an explanation of how God's simplicity in composition explains the trinity. You say this:

But Deism leads to atheism while the Trinity as an idea can withstand doubts. If someone believes in God it is most natural to believe God didn't just love himself for all eternity but is, instead, a family of persons in complete simplicity. — Gregory

How is that an explanation? How is it anything? It's just a kind of woolly nothing. Are you saying that there are three distinct people - three separate minds - who love each other? How are they all one mind, then? And how does simplicity have anything to do with this?

And just to recap:

You said (with that bizarre confidence that infects the ignorant) that Descartes published his Meditations in 1642.

It was 1641.

You then said you meant he wrote it in 1641 and published it the following year.

He didn't. He wrote it over many years and published it in 1641.

You then said you meant the French edition.

That wasn't published in 1642 either. It was published in 1647. (There were different editions printed, as Gassendi took exception to his objections - and Descartes' withering replies - being published, and so Descartes decided to take them out of subsequent editions replacing them with some contemptuous comments on a book of counter-criticisms that Gassendi wrote but that Descartes considered unworthy of his time...Descartes' comments being based on what friends of his who had taken the trouble to read the book had reported back to him about it).

You also described it as '5' meditations. It is 6.

You also decided that what Descartes actually wrote isn't important - it's understanding what he meant that is important, and you think you have some special insight into that.

So, let's be clear: you've been confidently wrong about Descartes on just about every single point. Yet you're still confident you know your stuff. It never ceases to amaze me!

So, how many things is a person allowed to not know, and still be considered perfect, or flawless? Is knowledge a factor at all? If God doesn’t know how to tie his shoes is he still perfect? You’re defining perfect so that nothing is excluded. If that’s the case then I’m perfect too.

It naturally follows that in order for someone to be perfect, they must have perfect qualities, at least those we deem as good. So, God would have perfect compassion, humility, patience, actions, knowledge, reasoning, etc. If any of those are lacking, then he isn’t perfect. Let me ask you a question, are there any qualities other than knowledge that God could lack and still be considered perfect? If not, then you’re special pleading with respect to knowledge. If so, please explain what they are, and how having imperfect qualities can rationally lead to perfection.

Why don't you read what I actually said?

There are different ways to be perfect.

One way involves knowing everything.

Another way doesn't.

See?