Let's put this down as misattribution. — Banno

You mean your misattribution.

AH, a misattributed misattribution.

I begin to see the worth of having theists on the forum. They are excellent bad examples.

The trinity is Neoplatonic.

Are we questioning about whether or not some omniscient being responsible for punishment will punish our ignorance? If so, the lack of faith, though incredibly understandable, would seem to preclude what is asked.

I think so too. But the facts are as follows:

1. Jesus and God are one (“I and the Father (God) are one”, John 10:30).

2. The Holy Spirit (Power of God or “Power of the Most High”, Luke 1:35) and God are one.

(The Holy Spirit is God’s Power by which he acts in the world and which is inseparable from God.)

3. Therefore, God, God’s Son, and the Holy Spirit are One. — Apollodorus

Yes, I agree that we must be taking about one and the same mind.

I would take issue with the claim that 'the Holy Spirit and God are one' is consistent with understanding the Holy Spirit to refer to God's power or agency. For that's a category error. A person's power is not one and the same as the person, but is rather a property of that person. I have powers, but I am not my powers.

Imagine a cube of clay. I then alter the shape of the clay into a sphere. And then I alter it again into a pyramid. A cube is not a sphere, and a sphere is not a pyramid, but it remains the same object that is cuboid, spherical and pyramidical respectively.

We can, perhaps, talk of a God-object, a Jesus-object and a Holy-Spirit-object, just as we can talk of a cuboid object, a spherical object and a pyramidical object. They can all be the same object, but what differentiates them is their possession of different properties. The God-object has omnipotence, omniscient, and omnibenevolence. The Jesus-object can be one and the same as the God-object without having to possess any of those properties. This would then make sense of how it could be that Jesus might not fully understand God even though God and Jesus are one and the same person. The cuboid lump of clay can, in virtue of being cuboid, do things that the spherical lump of clay cannot (fit through a certain size of square hole, for instance). But this does not, of course, imply that the spherical lump of clay is not the same lump of clay as the spherical lump of clay.

God is the same as his power and his love and his justice and everything about him. He is one thing. That is what monotheism is about. — Gregory

No, that's confused. Power, love etc - these are properties of a mind, but they do not constitute it. You are conflating an object with its properties.

I have powers, but I am not my powers (which is why, if I lose them, I remain the same person).

I have thoughts, but I am not my thoughts (which is why I can have some thoughts at one time and different ones at another, yet be the same person throughout).

God is not his power. To qualify as God you have to be omnipotent. Just as to qualify as a bachelor you have to lack a wife. But that does not mean that the person of God - the mind of God - has to be omnipotent. That would be like thinking that if one is a bachelor, then one is incapable of having a wife, or that were one to acquire a wife, one would be a different person.

Intellect and will similarly refer to properties of a mind, not the mind itself. A mind can lose its will and still be a mind. And a mind can lose its intellect (which I take to refer to its capacity to reflect) and still be a mind. That applies to the mind of God as much as any other.

Indeed, I don't think any mind can have any properties essentially, not if God exists anyway. For if God exists, then there is a mind that can do anything, and thus that mind does not have to have any of the properties it actually has, for if it did then it would lack omnipotence. And no other mind or thing can have any of its properties essentially either, for that too would operate to limit the powers of the omnipotent mind, which is a contradiction in terms.

So every thing has the properties it has thanks to God, and that includes God. And thus God - or rather, the mind that is God - has no essential properties and can remain one and the same person through any transformation whatever.

Maths to the rescue of Trinitarianism:

1. 4 (God) = 0 + 4 (The father) = 1 + 3 (The son) = 2 + 2 (The holy spirit)

2. 12 (God) = 1 × 12 (The father) = 2 × 6 (The son) = 3 × 4 (The holy spirit)

3. Half (God) = 1/2 (The father) = 0.50 (The son) = 50% (The holy spirit)

4. 1 (God) = 0 + 1 (The father) = 2 - 1 (The son) = 3 ÷ 3 (The holy spirit)

5. 1/3 (God) = 2/6 (The father) = 3/9 (The son) = 4/12 (The holy spirit)

I would take issue with the claim that 'the Holy Spirit and God are one' is consistent with understanding the Holy Spirit to refer to God's power or agency. For that's a category error. A person's power is not one and the same as the person, but is rather a property of that person. I have powers, but I am not my powers. — Bartricks

I agree that it sounds like a category error. I just thought that God is, by definition, sui generis. He isn't an ordinary "object" or comparable to anything else. Other than that, the Trinity as the same object with different properties sounds very interesting to me. We'll have to see how theologians would see it. By the way, did you just think of that trick now, or did you read about it somewhere in connection with the Trinity?

Good try. However, whether Christians would be entirely happy with reducing the Holy Trinity to numbers, seems uncertain. But you can never know.

Good try — Apollodorus

The numbers are simply meant as analogies to illustrate what I feel is the meaning of The Holy Trinity which is that The Father, The Son, and The Holy spirit are just different ways of expressing the same thing viz. God

Speaking of math and the Trinity, a more interesting attempt was made by Cusanus: Suppose you have an isosceles triangle in which two of its equal sides gradually became longer and longer.

Then, Cusa argued, a triangle that had sides which were infinitely long, would be an infinitely long straight line. That is because the longer the sides of the triangle become, the closer it gets to becoming a straight line.

That is how he explained, metaphorically, how 3 and 1 could be the same.

It's easier to understand with an infinite circle, which is also the same as an infinite line according to Cusa:

The trinity is Neoplatonic. — frank

At origin, yes. But it has become Christian in the meantime. Although, as I said, Christians not unnaturally tend to pray either to God the Father or God the Son, very seldom to the Trinity. To my understanding the Trinity is more for Christian philosophers than ordinary believers. It doesn't look like there are many of them on this forum anyway.

:up: Thanks.

The numbers are simply meant as analogies to illustrate what I feel is the meaning of The Holy Trinity — TheMadFool

Yes, and it makes sense to me. But would you not have to put it to theologians in mathematical terms? On the other hand, if there is no other solution, they may have to accept it. Something is better than nothing IMO.

That is because the longer the sides of the triangle become, the closer it gets — Amalac

Yes, maybe a triangle would be an apt illustration for the Trinity. Maybe the Trinity concept isn't quite so "inconsistent" after all.

Gots to have us a quadrinity and celebrate Judas. Without him, Christians ain't got shit.

I begin to see the worth of having theists on the forum. They are excellent bad examples. — Banno

That's what I thought, too. As long as they are excellent, who cares about "bad"?

Wouldn’t this amount to nothing more than talking to yourself? — Pinprick

The idea of different agencies is strongly influenced by Gnostic concepts. Some of their creation stories involve the interaction of separate agents well before the "world" is made. Scholars do not agree about the sources involved. It is complicated.

As a matter of Pauline theology, the incarnation relates to the first separation of Adam being cast out of Paradise by the Creator. The sacrifice of the Son is an opportunity to return. But it is just an offer that means nothing without takers.

Pascal and wagers and such.

By the way, did you just think of that trick now, or did you read about it somewhere in connection with the Trinity? — Apollodorus

It's all me - I haven't read anything whatsoever about the trinity, but I am sure someone else will have made the same point somewhere. (Although perhaps not, as theologians are hobbled to some extent by their commitment to respecting scripture - though as I do not know what scipture says on this matter, perhaps it doesn't - and many theistic philosophers seem to insist that God exists of necessity, or has certain properties of necessity or is only 'omnipotent' in some rather weedy way, and this all may prevent them helping themselves to the kind of understanding I've proposed.....but I don't know as I am not religious ,and I am not sure to what extent they are respecting scripture....I mean, I do know that Jesus shares my view of omnipotence and not theirs).

I just thought that God is, by definition, sui generis. He isn't an ordinary "object" or comparable to anything else. — Apollodorus

This is a perfect example of magical thinking, The fact that a thing and the power of a thing are not the same is no longer a problem because this being is not like any other being, There are no constraints on this magical being because there are no constraints on what you can claim about it.

Such irrationalism is not acceptable to philosophy in general.

And yes, you are free to believe whatever you want, but you can't have it both ways, both rational thought and an irrational religion.

It's all me - I haven't read anything whatsoever about the trinity, but I am sure someone else will have made the same point somewhere. — Bartricks

Well done, in that case. 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?

Or Circle, Octagon, Square?

What I'm saying is could we use geometric figures in such as way as to amalgamate your analogy with those of @TheMadFool and @Amalac (and maybe others) into a great Unified Theory/Analogy of the Trinity?

And would it demonstrate that the statement "the Trinity is inconsistent" is false?

It is not about me. And it is not about you. This is about a very old problem that Christian theologians have wrestled with for well over a thousand years.. It is about the attempt to avoid logical contradiction by arguing the being in question is unique and defining it in such a way that it is exempt from logical scrutiny.

Now one can make a rational argument for theological irrationality, and it has been done, but one cannot then argue that the irrational is rational.

one cannot then argue that the irrational is rational. — Fooloso4

If it can be shown that the "irrational" is rational then it ceases to be irrational. But then you've spoken to Jesus or he to you and you know better than anyone else, so it's OK.

If it can be shown that the "irrational" is rational then it ceases to be irrational. — Apollodorus

Is that something you think you can do? It is not what I said. What I said is that one can make a rational argument for theological irrationality. That is not at all the same.

What I said is that one can make a rational argument for theological irrationality. — Fooloso4

Nobody is preventing you from doing that, so you can calm down now.

. I want you to understand this simple Truth ...

. Please ... read it carefully ... with no-mind ... put your mind aside ... with a simple and serene attitude ... so the false can be perceive as the false ... once for all ... and then ... yes ... truth can rise up ... when False is not ... just then ...that which is ... is perceived ... as that which is ...

. Jesus is reported to have said that "God is Love" ... which is totally an absurd ... he could not have said that absurdity ... God is not Love ... cannot be Love ... Why is it so ... ?

. Because ... it emplies that he can be many other things, Love is not his totality - he can be just, he can be all-powerful, he can be all-seeing, he can be present everywhere; Love does not exhaust his whole being, Love is only one of the attributes of God. But if you change it into: "Love is God", then God becomes an attribute of Love.

. And Love is an oneness ... has no other attributes. Love is the only experience on the earth, which is not of this world, the only experience which can give you a taste of the beyond ...

. God cannot be proved ... because ... it is an attribute of Love ... God comes out of Love ... not the other way round. Love can be proved. Love cannot only be proved, it can be lived. And, as you live Love, you will know, something divine has entered into you. You are no longer just an ordinary human being. Something in you, in your consciousness, has gone beyond humanity. And that beyondness, the taste of that beyondness is, the only argument and the only evidence of something which people have called God.

. Now ... your Doubt ...

. First of all ... don't repress yourself ... whenever you want to criticize religions. In fact, religions deserve criticism. They deserve to be burdened completely. Their so-called holy scriptures are very unholy.

. The trinity is not separate ... God cannot be separate ... out of that so-called religious act ... was borned a profanation ... a religious cancer ...

. When Jesus says that ... "I'm the son of God ... " or "I'm the son of Man" ... or even "I'm God ... " he's saying that he turned to a state of non-being ... he reached to a superconsciousness state ... He is one with the whole ... He's Brahma ... He's God ... He's the non-manifestable ... because ... there's nowhere ... where ... he is not ... He's the oceanic consciousness ... He's just a crystal lake ... reflecting the moon shape ...

. The whole history of Jesus has been totally misunderstood ...

. To see God ... means... to become Godly ... because ... it is a state. It is the ultimate peak of consciousness. It is the ultimate flowering of the seed that is hidden within you. It is the manifestation of the one that was hidden.

. Godliness is a state of being. This is why it is a better word than God ... because ... Godliness is a state, not a person. It is divine. Instead of calling the ... ultimate ... God ... or the Brahman ... call it Godliness or Divinity.

. Man is a seed. You can say that he is a seed of existence or of divinity, of godliness, and as long as he does not blossom into a flower of godliness, his restlessness will continue ...

. Jesus is a Christ ... because ... since his unity with that which is ... his restlessness ceased ...

. Don't follow this priests ... follow your inner light ... it will lead you to the ultimate experience of oneself ... one can become a Christ ... because ... Christ is a quality ... not a definition of Jesus ...

. Surely ... subtle and well managed lies are convenient ... for this huge ... massive ... economical movement of Christianity ...

. They don't want you to know ... that ... Christ is a quality ... that you CAN BECOME A CHRIST ... THAT ... IT IS NOT SOMETHING RESTRICTED TO JESUS ...

. But ... if ... they tell you that ... this whole religious cow dung ... produced ... by Christianity and so on so forth ... will be drowned away ...

. When False is perceived as False ... then ... the Lotus ... the flower ... of Truth ... blossoms.

. And ... remember ... the Lotus ... does blossoms from the mud ... from Falsehood ... So even Falsehood ... is valuable ... so you can perceive it as non-Truth ... then ... out of that perception ... The Lotus is born ... Truth is born ... Truth is resurrected ...

. Then ... the flowering of Truth ... happens ...

You miss the point. You can do one or the other, not both. You can attempt to make a rational theological argument and then deal rationally with any contradictions or you can decide that rational argument is inadequate for understanding the mystery.

This thread is about the Trinity, not about you. I think you are confused.

This thread is about the Trinity, not about you. I think you are confused. — Apollodorus

There is nothing in my posts about myself. In an earlier post I said:

It is not about me. And it is not about you. This is about a very old problem that Christian theologians have wrestled with for well over a thousand years. — Fooloso4

I keep pointing to the problem of the Trinity. I have offered what many Christian theologians, ancient and contemporary, take to be the only way out of the logical contradictions that arise from theological claims.

It is all well documented and easy to find, the work of Christian theologians.

... my posts ... myself ... I said ... I keep pointing ... I have offered ... — Fooloso4

It's all "me, me, me" all the time, isn't it?

There is no "problem of the Trinity" whatsoever. There was some discussion regarding its precise philosophical interpretation. That is all. Of course anti-Christians latch on to that because they have no other arguments. But that's their problem, not anyone else's.