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.

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

There was no personal attack, just a statement of fact. I don't need to "defend" the rationality of the Trinity because there is nothing irrational about it except in your imagination. Basically, you're talking to yourself and struggling with your own irrational doubts.

But to go back to your cuboid, spherical and pyramidal objects.

How about taking (1) a circle/sphere to represent God, (2) a square/cube inside the circle/sphere to represent the Holy Spirit, and (3) a triangle/pyramid inside the square/cube to represent Jesus? — Apollodorus

No, I don't think that works. I take it that one wants to say that God, Jesus and the Holy spirit are all one and the same person or mind (i tend to use mind and person interchangeably, but some may not). But that's not what you've described. A box that contains another box, which in turn contains another box, are not correctly described as 'the same box'. They're distinct boxes.

A cube of clay that is then formed into a sphere and then into a pyramid is one and the same lump of clay through all of these transformations. The same clay, but with different properties. By analogy, God, Jesus and the Holy spirit would be one and the same mind, but with different properties.

A cube of clay that is then formed into a sphere and then into a pyramid is one and the same lump of clay through all of these transformations. The same clay, but with different properties. — Bartricks

True. Classical texts use a similar analogy where a lump of gold assumes the form of different pieces of jewelry. But in the Trinity case all three exist simultaneously, so I thought it wouldn't be bad if they could be visually represented as occupying the same or almost the same space.

But three boxes, one inside the other, are not one and the same box. I could not say of one of the smaller boxes that it 'is' the larger box.

I do not know what Christians are committed to saying about the trinity (if anything). And so I do not know why the 'same entity, different properties' proposal doesn't put the matter to sleep. Certainly an object that is spherical is not cuboid at the same time and so one cannot coherently say of an object that it is spherical and cuboid at once.

But God is like 'bachelor' in that it denotes a person who has certain properties, namely the omni properties. The mind that has those properties will remain the same mind if they divest themselves of them, either permanently or temporarily, just as a bachelor remains the same person after getting married even though he no longer has the status of a bachelor.

Perhaps many theologians think God has his omni properties essentially or something - but in that case I think they are confused and misunderstand the nature of omnipotence. They must think there is something impossible about divesting oneself of these properties, even though an ability to do so would have to be included in being omnipotent. So God doesn't have to be God, he just is. That is, God is God by God's own grace. And if that's true, and I fail to see how it couldn't be, then the person of God can have different properties at different times and still be one and the same person.

But like I say, I do not know what doctrines about the trinity have been formulated or to what extent any of it is anything anyone is committed to by scripture. So, I have heard people describe it as 'three persons in one godhead' or something like that. Well, I do not know why anyone would interpret it that way as that doesn't give you one person, but three seperate persons in one location. Maybe it's just tradition or something. But anyway, what good reason is there for rejecting the 'same person, different properties' analysis?

what good reason is there for rejecting the 'same person, different properties' analysis? — Bartricks

No particular reason, to be honest. However, seeing that non-Christians or anti-Christians can sometimes be a pain in the neck and make up all kinds of spurious objections, I thought it wouldn't be bad to formulate it in a way that sounds more convincing even to the more recalcitrant ones.

Having said that, I've found that for everyday purposes, even my formula of (1) God the Father (God in his transcendent aspect), (2) Holy Spirit (God in his immanent aspect), and (3) God the Son (Jesus), tends to work.

But as you say, it needs to be confirmed with theologians. I think you did a good job on the justification for reincarnation as well. I do appreciate that. :up:

So, it seems I’ve missed quite a bit the last day or so I wasn’t able to log on….

To perhaps clarify a bit, I’m really not interested in debating the funds aspects of the trinity aside from what I specifically mentioned. What’s confusing to me is that Jesus is typically considered by Christians as flawless, or perfect, and divine. To me that means he must have perfect knowledge in the same way God is presumed to have. But if that’s the case, why all the questioning of God by Jesus? Shouldn’t he have known his fate (crucifixion) and agreed with it if his consciousness is one and the same as God’s? How could one feel forsaken by one’s own consciousness?

How could one feel forsaken by one’s own consciousness? — Pinprick

He didn't. He was about to die and was reciting from Scripture, Psalm of David, Psalm 22:2

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt2622.htm

What’s confusing to me is that Jesus is typically considered by Christians as flawless, or perfect, and divine. — Pinprick

There can be more than one way to be perfect. Being perfect, then, does not have to involve having one set of unalterable characteristics. One can change one's characteristics and still be perfect.

To me that means he must have perfect knowledge in the same way God is presumed to have. — Pinprick

It should now be clear that this does not follow. One can be perfect and know everything - and one's knowing everything can be part of what makes one perfect - and one can be perfect and not know everything - and one's not knowing everything can be part of what makes on perfect. For again, there's more than one way to be perfect. Take Velasquez's portrait of pope innocent X, and Da Vinci's Madonna of the rocks. Both might qualify as perfect paintings, and it might be the loose brushwork on the Velasquez that partly contributes to its perfection even though that same kind of brushwork on the Madonna of the rocks would detract from its perfection. They are both perfect, but for different reasons.

So, anyway, omniscience can make an omnipotent omnibenevolent being perfect, but that doesn't mean that omniscience is essential to perfection. Thus the mind of God can divest itself of omniscience, still be the same mind, and still be perfect. Sometimes, for instance, it seems that a person can be better for not knowing something than for knowing it. Take being perfect itself. If you believe you are perfect - which would be a requirement for knowing it - then that may actually make you less than perfect. Someone who is perfect but does not believe it, displays a humility the perfect person who knows he is perfect lacks.

But if that’s the case, why all the questioning of God by Jesus? Shouldn’t he have known his fate (crucifixion) and agreed with it if his consciousness is one and the same as God’s? How could one feel forsaken by one’s own consciousness? — Pinprick

You're conflating consciousness with mind. There is no such thing as 'a consciousness' . There are conscious states and then there are minds that bear them. You have conscious states and by virtue of being in them you qualify as 'conscious'. But talk of 'your own consciousness' is confused. And it is contributing to your confusion above. God's mind and Jesus's mind can be one and the same mind, without having to have the same content. I am the same mind as the mind I was yesterday, and yesterday I wrote a note to myself telling myself to do something today, something that I cannot today fathom the reasoning behind. There is no problem with this - I am wondering why I told myself to do X.

Seems to me, then, that you're seeing or making problems where there are none.

There should be threads on the Trinity on this forum because it is to be analyzed by philosophy by design. It doesnt matter if it corresponds to reality because even Christians say it is just an idea. Reality is unspeakable said Wittgenstein, but if the readers want to talk about a one sentence philosopher like him then they are missing out of some interesting thought process. The mind can have a very good idea of God and understanding how will and reason relate to processions within a deity is philosophy at its best

Seems to me, then, that you're seeing or making problems where there are none. — Bartricks

Correct. @Pinprick doesn't have a clue. He is substituting imagination for fact.

The fact is that there is nothing in the Gospel text to suggest that Jesus was “forsaken”. He only said “Why have you forsaken me?” because he was reciting from the Psalms. When someone is about to die, the normal procedure is to ask for forgiveness after which you say the final prayers (viduy) that contain verses from the Psalms - any verses you want.

1. Jesus asked for forgiveness but not for himself (as he was naturally blameless):

“Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing." Luke 23:34

2. He then said:

“Why have you forsaken me?” Matthew 27:46 (from Psalm 22:2)

and

“Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." Luke 23:46 (from Psalm 31:5)

So, Jesus’ last words were consistent with tradition. He never said anything that would suggest he was literally forsaken or anything of the sort.

Taking statements out of context can lead to all kinds of interpretations or "conclusions" but that only amounts to deliberate misconstruction of the text, which is what @Pinprick is doing for his own agenda.

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.

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

here is a brief synopsis from a review of the eminent New Testament scholar's Bert Ehrman's "How Jesus Became God" — Fooloso4

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

Second, Ehrman is only “eminent” to atheists and anti-Christians like yourself.

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

"Daniel Wallace has argued that in Misquoting Jesus Ehrman sometimes "overstates his case by assuming that his view is certainly correct." For example, Ehrman himself acknowledges the vast majority of textual variants are minor, but his popular writing and speaking sometimes makes the sheer number of them appear to be a major problem for getting to the original New Testament text."

"Andreas J. Köstenberger, Darrell L. Bock and Josh D. Chatraw have disputed Ehrman's depiction of scholarly consensus, saying: "It is only by defining scholarship on his own terms and by excluding scholars who disagree with him that Ehrman is able to imply that he is supported by all other scholarship." "

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.

Bart D. Ehrman – Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._Ehrman#Reception

You don't think there can be essential properties in God because you don't believe in something above reason. From Aristotle to Hegel, great philosophers have said the greatest joy for a human is to glimpse divine truth although it remains incomprehensible. Your God sounds like an immaterial Boltzmann brain instead of an infinitely simple being. Catholics emphasis God's transcendence and complete simplicity (which means God is one in every way possible) while Lutherans speak about God's complete immanence in being "everything in everything". I don't see a distinction between philosophy and theology. We get a lot of our ideas from archetypes and history. The Trinity is a high level idea which is philosophically analysable but cannot be made into perfect cognition by us ever. Philosophy and theology are too separate in Catholicism, I'll grant that. Lutherans and Eastern Orthodox do a better job on this and on God's immancence but a dialectic within Christianity is very important for growth of thought. Aquinas had a specific notion of God as utterly simple and as pure actuality and had countless ideas that are philosophically sound if you accept his premises. He was another Aristotle. His system needed completion by others, but he was a first rate mind

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.

He didn't. He was about to die and was reciting from Scripture, Psalm of David, Psalm 22:2 — Apollodorus

Ok, then what about his prayer in Gethsemane? This too seems to illustrate the same point. He seemingly lacked knowledge of God’s plan/will. And maybe even disagreed with it.

It should now be clear that this does not follow. One can be perfect and know everything - and one's knowing everything can be part of what makes one perfect - and one can be perfect and not know everything - and one's not knowing everything can be part of what makes on perfect. For again, there's more than one way to be perfect. — Bartricks

I disagree. Perfection necessarily entails flawlessness. Not knowing something is a flaw.

God's mind and Jesus's mind can be one and the same mind, without having to have the same content. I am the same mind as the mind I was yesterday, and yesterday I wrote a note to myself telling myself to do something today, something that I cannot today fathom the reasoning behind. There is no problem with this - I am wondering why I told myself to do X. — Bartricks

I see what you’re trying to say, but their collective mind existed simultaneously. Your mind can change day to day, but at each particular point in time its content is whatever it is. I don’t see how one mind can at the same time know X, but also not know X.

Correct. Pinprick doesn't have a clue. He is substituting imagination for fact. — Apollodorus

I may not have a clue, but I’m not trying to imagine anything. I wasn’t aware he was reciting scripture. So I’m fine with tossing out that example.

Taking statements out of context can lead to all kinds of interpretations or "conclusions" but that only amounts to deliberate misconstruction of the text, which is what Pinprick is doing for his own agenda. — Apollodorus

My agenda? What are you talking about? I’ve admitted my ignorance about the subject, and am only asking questions. It appears to me that you’re the one drawing unwarranted conclusions about me. Why assume I’m deliberately misconstructing the text? Stop being so defensive, I’m not even attacking you.



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.

First of all, if I misspelled his name then so have you. — Fooloso4

As usual with your statements, there is no logic there whatsoever. I haven't, you have. Look again or get you eyesight checked. Here's your statement:

here is a brief synopsis from a review of the eminent New Testament scholar's Bert Ehrman's "How Jesus Became God" — Fooloso4

Your words, not mine. As I said, you seem to be confused. Could be Alzheimer's or something, so you should be concerned.

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. — Fooloso4

That's a typical leftist straw man. Most US colleges and universities are notoriously dominated by atheists and anti-Christians like Ehrman. The same applies to journals of "Biblical scholarship".

The fact that you are agitated by scholarly work on Christian history does not make him an agitator. — Fooloso4

lol I'm not agitated at all. On the contrary, you make me laugh. Ehrman is an atheist who is devoting his life to constructing Christian texts as "forgeries". That qualifies him as an anti-Christian activist and agitator IMO.

Here is Ehrman's own statement:

"If a student is a fundamentalist, I hope they finish the semester as a wiser and more thoughtful fundamentalist than when they came into the class. If that happens, I’ve done my job".

So, according to Ehrman, everyone who disagrees with his unfounded claim that Christian texts are "forgeries", is a "fundamentalist", and his job is to make them "less fundamentalist".

As I said, it isn't in the least surprising that anti-Christian activists like yourself cite other anti-Christian activists like Ehrman as their "eminent authority". You aren't fooling anyone.

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.

You are overstating things. The Gospels CAN be read as consistent with themselves and Christian theology. It just not necessarily the only reading. 3 Gospels speak of Jesus's humanity and John states the Divinity part too. No contradiction

I don't need to "defend" the rationality of the Trinity because there is nothing irrational about it except in your imagination. — Apollodorus

...and in every thinking smart intelligent man's and woman's imagination.

It is true that you do not need to defend the rationality of the trinity or Trinity. You do not need to defend the rationality of the Trinity because you are personally and hopelessly irrational when it comes to discussing church matters, matters of faith, or any matter whatsoever. If I want to hear a rational defense for the Trinity, I listen to someone else but you, hoping that opposed to you, they don't just vomit garbage out of their mouths.

you are understating things. The gospel has real difficulties harmonizing its stories. From the smallest details to the most monumental ideas. If you haven't read the Gospel IN ITS ENTIRETY then it's easy to say it does not contain self-contradictory elements. Nothing is hard or complicated or impossible, if you don't know it in its detail.

As I said, it isn't in the least surprising that anti-Christian activists like yourself cite other anti-Christian activists like Ehrman as their "eminent authority". You aren't fooling anyone. — Apollodorus

Except you. You are being fooled by Fooloso4, because you even mistake what Fooloso4's most eminent authority is the Ehrman. No Ehrman is not. It is the bible itself. You were fooled by your own idiocy.

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

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

I may not have a clue, but I’m not trying to imagine anything. I wasn’t aware he was reciting scripture. So I’m fine with tossing out that example. — Pinprick

Well, that only proves that you don't have a clue. There was no offence intended, it was a statement of fact which you yourself now admit. I do realize that atheists and other non-Christians often raise rhetorical questions of this type but they tend to stem from lack of knowledge about Christian scriptures and beliefs. So it looks like you're tossing out your arguments about the Trinity and about Jesus' last words.

As already stated, Jesus had a dual nature. He was both human and divine. If you will you can take the example of an actor who is his own person in everyday life but assumes a distinct identity on stage as prescribed by a particular role at a particular time. There is no contradiction there.

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

You are absolutely right. What you said here is true.

If you use the rational, thinking person's eye, the Bible is inconsistent. If you can believe its contents, then your eyes are already providing skewed vision, so it appears consistent.

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.

No Ehrman is not. It is the bible itself. You were fooled by your own idiocy.[/quote]

I think you were fooled by your idiocy. At no point has Fooloso4 referred to the Bible.