Please note: because you're not logged in, you may be viewing older cached versions of pages which are served up to reduce server load.
Print The trinity | |
|
rigelrover
Professor  Usergroup: Sponsors Joined: Aug 05, 2009 Total Topics: 24 Total Posts: 776 |
 #41
Are we looking for a material possibility? a logical one? How about a metaphysical one? Material: Quantum decoherence...Bose-Einstein condensate. The many become one. (Though this does not sound much like the god-concept that we are thinking of). Material: Time-wise, the unity, the singularity gave rise to the plurality of things that we perceive today as locally differentiated in space-time. Metaphysical/Logical: All is one. I am more interested in questions than answers; dialog than dictation. If we can reasonably believe that there is not just a breach, but a fundamentally unclosable gap between the individual mind and the ultimate nature of the reality; the primordial thing in itself, then true mystery does exist. |
|
aletheist
Tenured Poster  Usergroup: Sponsors Joined: Feb 06, 2009 Location: Olathe, KS Total Topics: 15 Total Posts: 1079 |
#42
Incision wrote: No, the "is" of (2) does not imply absolute identity; the whole point of (3) is to clarify this very point. The traditional formulation is that God is one in essence, but three in person; his unity and diversity are in two different senses, hence there is no logical inconsistency or contradiction. Other ways of putting it include one nature, but three centers of consciousness; one it, but three I's; and one what, but three who's.The doctrine of the trinity includes that (1) There is one god. This looks inconsistent to me. The obvious (?) interpretation of (2) and (3) is that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are identical to God, but not identical to each other. That is,(2) The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. (3) The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct. (2') f = g & s = g & h = g But those are inconsistent because identity is transitive.(3') ~(f = s v f = h v s = h) Incision wrote: The problem here is that (1') is not a proper formalization of (1); you really just moved the assumption of absolute identity from (2) to (1). Perhaps what needs to happen is a differentiation of "=" in (1') vs. (3'); it is the identity of essence/nature/it/what in (1') and the identity of person/consciousness/I/who in (3'). Thus the inconsistency disappears--although the mystery remains. There's an argument that "is God" should be construed in (2) and (3) as a nonidentity predicate. I don't how that's even grammatical, but suppose it is. Then there still seems to be a contradiction, because (1) says there's only one god. That is, (1') Ex [Gx & Ay [Gy -> y = x]] is also inconsistent.(2'')Gf & Gs & Gh (3') 
"Be attentive. Be intelligent. Be reasonable. Be responsible." - Bernard Lonergan (1904-1984) |
|
aletheist
Tenured Poster Usergroup: Sponsors Joined: Feb 06, 2009 Location: Olathe, KS Total Topics: 15 Total Posts: 1079 |
#43
swstephe wrote: Jesus voluntarily accepted the limitations of embodied humanity during his incarnation--he "emptied himself" or "made himself nothing" (Philippians 2:6-11). A physical brain cannot contain the infinite knowledge of the omniscient God.The most popular exception is that, at one point, Jesus mentions that God knows when he will return to earth, but he doesn't. That indicates that they have different access to information and separate minds. swstephe wrote: God is eternal, which is not the same as immortal. In any case, Christians believe that all humans have immortal souls--you have never met a mere mortal! When the body of Jesus died, his soul continued to exist, and the same will be true of each of us.The fact that Jesus purportedly died and was resurrected contradicts the idea that God is immortal. swstephe wrote: It was scandalous to the Jews that Jesus presumed to be able to forgive any sins at all. "Who can forgive sins but God alone?" (Mark 2:7)There is also a verse which says there are sins which Jesus, God or the Holy Spirit could forgive or not forgive differently. swstephe wrote: As noted above, Jesus veiled his divine glory during his time on earth. Also, Ananias and Sapphira dropped dead when confronted with their sin of lying to the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:1-11).A point is often made that nobody can stand in the presence of God with sin and live, (look at the precautions taken to enter the holy-of-holies in the Old Testament), yet no mention is made of anyone dropping dead in the presence of Jesus or even the Holy Spirit. swstephe wrote: That is not quite an accurate summary of the relevant incident, which is reported in all three of the synoptic Gospels with minor variations.Jesus also mentions that only the Father, but not himself are "good", when someone attempts to call him good or worship him. Matthew wrote: Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, "Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?" "Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good." (19:16-17) Mark wrote: As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. "Good teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?" "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone." (11:17-18) Luke wrote: In none of these accounts does Jesus deny his own goodness or, by extension, his divinity. The man who asked the question was not a believer, so Jesus simply questioned why he would attribute goodness--a property of God alone--to someone whom he (presumably) considered to be a mere (human) teacher. Also, on the various occasions when his disciples worshiped him, Jesus never once rebuked them for it or told them to stop.
A certain ruler asked him, "Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?" "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone." (18:18-19) "Be attentive. Be intelligent. Be reasonable. Be responsible." - Bernard Lonergan (1904-1984) |
|
swstephe
Tenured Poster  Usergroup: Moderators Joined: Apr 20, 2006 Location: Borneo Island ... no, really Total Topics: 30 Total Posts: 4099 |
#44
I was a Christian for 20 years, so I know how it is when everything you read seems to confirm a specific conclusion, but now I often see the opposite. aletheist wrote: Jesus voluntarily accepted the limitations of embodied humanity during his incarnation--he "emptied himself" or "made himself nothing" (Philippians 2:6-11). A physical brain cannot contain the infinite knowledge of the omniscient God. So you agree that Jesus didn't not have the same mental capacity as God and was therefore not omniscient? Philippians 2 was the center of the modalism debate at the beginning of Christianity. Whether Jesus had the same nature/form as God. But remember that Genesis 1:26 claims that all humans were made in the image/likeness of God. aletheist wrote: God is eternal, which is not the same as immortal. In any case, Christians believe that all humans have immortal souls--you have never met a mere mortal! When the body of Jesus died, his soul continued to exist, and the same will be true of each of us. That confirms what I said as well. Jesus has a body, just like us. He has an immortal soul, just like all of us. God does not have a body and is "eternal". Therefore Jesus was mortal and not God. Also, note that Jesus is referred to "only begotten son". This seems to put aside the idea that Jesus could have been truly eternal, like God. aletheist wrote: It was scandalous to the Jews that Jesus presumed to be able to forgive any sins at all. "Who can forgive sins but God alone?" (Mark 2:7) Jesus claims the authority to forgive sins on earth, therefore he must be God, (despite all the other differences)? To support this, you must be in agreement with the scribe, ("the Jews"), who thought this to be a form of blasphemy. But elsewhere, especially in the "Lord's Prayer", Jesus exhorts all his followers to forgive sins, (see Matthew 6:14-15). Even allowing for the equivocation with the "Father", (assuming the scribe is right in claiming that only God can forgive sins), it is core Christian doctrine that the Father could not forgive sins until Jesus' sacrifice anyway. Jesus would only be able to forgive sins that didn't require that sacrifice -- or he was talking about a future state. aletheist wrote: As noted above, Jesus veiled his divine glory during his time on earth. Also, Ananias and Sapphira dropped dead when confronted with their sin of lying to the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:1-11). So you agree that Jesus is less than God simply because his followers weren't dropping like flies and the Roman guards who mock him during the passion aren't immediately struck by lightning? People can stand in the presence of the Holy Spirit, as well, without dying. The Holy Spirit seems to order hits on specific people only to make a point. aletheist wrote: That is not quite an accurate summary of the relevant incident, which is reported in all three of the synoptic Gospels with minor variations.In none of these accounts does Jesus deny his own goodness or, by extension, his divinity. The man who asked the question was not a believer, so Jesus simply questioned why he would attribute goodness--a property of God alone--to someone whom he (presumably) considered to be a mere (human) teacher. Also, on the various occasions when his disciples worshiped him, Jesus never once rebuked them for it or told them to stop. You are correct that Jesus never denies it. But insisting that lack of denial is equivalent to confirmation is "negative proof". Much of the bias toward these verses, (and convoluted explanations), is the "bias toward confirmation" deep in psychology. A Jehovah's witness will see these same verses as confirmation of him being a mere human. Back when I was a Christian, the most troubling verses were when the apostles first started to describe who Jesus was, they never mention him being equivalent to God. Instead, they describe him as a "man" or "prophet", and don't describe it. Only Paul starts to describe it, but not the formula or even the "three", (it was extrapolated from Mark). It made me consider for a long time whether belief in Jesus being part of the trinity was really necessary for salvation. The most common complaint is that the word "trinity" or any explanation of its meaning, (or even mind-body duality, for that matter), is never mentioned in scriptures. In early church history, the concept of trinity was found impossible to explain, (my big question -- can you believe something you can't understand), and requires divine revelation. But since it is not in scripture, it is a divine revelation from a questionable source. How can you accept something as being mandatory for belief that isn't even mentioned in scriptures? Someone who had no access to Christianity other than the Bible would probably never arrive at the conclusion that seems so obvious to mainstream Christians looking for confirmation -- in the same way that they see references to Jesus in the Old Testament, only after assuming that such references exist. I do seem to remember a process where you people ask me questions and I give you answers, and then I ask you questions and you give me answers, and that's the way we find out things. I think I read that in a manual somewhere. -- Haywood Floyd 2010 |
|
Ghosthack
Graduate Usergroup: Members Joined: Jul 19, 2009 Total Topics: 7 Total Posts: 129 |
#45
swstephe wrote: Jesus claims the authority to forgive sins on earth, therefore he must be God, (despite all the other differences)? If only God can forgive sins in general and someone forgives sins in general then logically that person is God. If you don't believe he can forgive sins in general then he isn't God. swstephe wrote: But elsewhere, especially in the "Lord's Prayer", Jesus exhorts all his followers to forgive sins, (see Matthew 6:14-15). You have lumped all forgiveness of sins in together (just like you like to lump in all of Christianity together). There are sins which can be forgiven by a person and they are those committed against the person. That's why it says in the Lord's prayer "Forgive those who sin AGAINST US" not "Forgive those who sin". This is in line with Jewish practice where you can forgive a sin committed against you but not other sins. The man Jesus forgives has clearly not sinned against him, he doesn't even know him. He forgives him of all his sins which is something only God should be able to do. swstephe wrote: it is core Christian doctrine that the Father could not forgive sins until Jesus' sacrifice anyway. Jesus would only be able to forgive sins that didn't require that sacrifice -- or he was talking about a future state. This is not true and severely simplifies the problems of soteriology. swstephe wrote: A Jehovah's witness will see these same verses as confirmation of him being a mere human. Jehovah's witnesses don't believe that. I don't know where you get this idea that a lot of early Christians thought he was just human. This is completely untrue. This is obvious from a reading of scripture. The problems of Christology existed then as today and the Trinity wasn't developed until later but the idea of Christ as more than human was pretty much universally held. swstephe wrote: can you believe something you can't understand God? Anyways this is besides the point. The Trinity is an article of FAITH. It doesn't have be something you can completely understand. The question isn't whether the Trinity is intelligible but whether there is scriptural basis for such a concept. swstephe wrote: in the same way that they see references to Jesus in the Old Testament, only after assuming that such references exist. Maybe because Jesus repeatedly makes reference to prophesies of the Old Testament that make reference to his coming? Edited by Ghosthack on Oct 8, 2009 - 4:41 AM |
|
Incision
Dust in the wind  Usergroup: Administrators Joined: Jan 04, 2008 Location: The endless sea Total Topics: 25 Total Posts: 1391 |
#46
aletheist wrote: No, the "is" of (2) does not imply absolute identity; the whole point of (3) is to clarify this very point. You're thinking it's relative identity, then? I'm aware that some people think there's a three-place relation, "x is the F as y," that's compatible with "x is not the same G as y." But I'm not sure there is such a thing as relative identity. There's a standard account of identity: The SEP wrote: It can be defined, [. . .] circularly (because quantifying over all equivalence relations including itself), as the smallest equivalence relation (an equivalence relation being one which is reflexive, symmetric and transitive, for example, having the same shape). Other circular definitions are available. Usually it is defined as the equivalence relation (or: the reflexive relation) satisfying Leibniz's Law, the principle of the indiscernibility of identicals, that if x is identical with y then everything true of x is true of y. (Link) But notice that equivalence relations, of course, are two-place relations, and relative identity would be a three-place relation, so relative identity can't be an equivalence relation. It also wouldn't be subject to the indiscernibility of identicals. Suppose the Son is the same god as the Father, and the "is" is the "is" of relative identity. Then still, the Son has the property of being identical to the Son, and the Father may not. So Leibniz's Law wouldn't hold for relative identity. That means it's very different from what identity is normally supposed to be. So I'd say there are two problems with the appeal to relative identity. First, it presupposes that there is such a thing as relative identity, and this is commonly considered false. Since we'd be challenging the consensus to claim there's relative identity, we have the burden of proof. Do you have an argument? Second, it's not clear what relative identity would be. I know what it's supposed to do: it's supposed to make possible statements like "Jesus is the same god as the Father, but not the same person." But what in particular would follow from a claim of relative identity? What, for example, would distinguish it from a claim of mutual membership in a set (which presumably is not a claim of identity)? If we can't explain how relative identity works, then I think the doctrine of the trinity would be meaningless. The only leaf it drops goes wide, Your name not written on either side. — Robert Frost, "On Going Unnoticed"
|
|
swstephe
Tenured Poster Usergroup: Moderators Joined: Apr 20, 2006 Location: Borneo Island ... no, really Total Topics: 30 Total Posts: 4099 |
#47
Ghosthack wrote: If only God can forgive sins in general and someone forgives sins in general then logically that person is God. If you don't believe he can forgive sins in general then he isn't God. The Pope forgives sins, therefore the Pope is God? Ghosthack wrote: You have lumped all forgiveness of sins in together (just like you like to lump in all of Christianity together). There are sins which can be forgiven by a person and they are those committed against the person. That's why it says in the Lord's prayer "Forgive those who sin AGAINST US" not "Forgive those who sin". This is in line with Jewish practice where you can forgive a sin committed against you but not other sins. The man Jesus forgives has clearly not sinned against him, he doesn't even know him. He forgives him of all his sins which is something only God should be able to do. Matthew 9:1-7 wrote: Jesus stepped into a boat, crossed over and came to his own town. Some men brought to him a paralytic, lying on a mat. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven." At this, some of the teachers of the law said to themselves, "This fellow is blaspheming!" Knowing their thoughts, Jesus said, "Why do you entertain evil thoughts in your hearts? Which is easier: to say, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up and walk'? But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins...." Then he said to the paralytic, "Get up, take your mat and go home." And the man got up and went home. When the crowd saw this, they were filled with awe; and they praised God, who had given such authority to men. Notice the bold parts. The crowds understood that God was the source of forgiveness and had given this authority to men, (in this case Jesus ... although it can be argued that Jesus is merely reflecting on the fact that the paralytic's faith -- note that John the Baptist also calls people to repent and be baptized for the repentence of sins ... even before Jesus shows up). Ghosthack wrote: Jehovah's witnesses don't believe that. I don't know where you get this idea that a lot of early Christians thought he was just human. This is completely untrue. This is obvious from a reading of scripture. The problems of Christology existed then as today and the Trinity wasn't developed until later but the idea of Christ as more than human was pretty much universally held. Back in my anti-trinitarian days, I found most of my best articles from Jehovah's witness literature. They clearly do not accept the doctrine of "trinity". Here is as official a statement as you will find: http://www.watchtower.org/e/ti/index.htm?article=start.htm Ghosthack wrote: God? Anyways this is besides the point. The Trinity is an article of FAITH. It doesn't have be something you can completely understand. The question isn't whether the Trinity is intelligible but whether there is scriptural basis for such a concept. Believing in God as a person, with no assumption on nature, is quite different than believing in a particular metaphysical concept such as "trinity". It is like comparing whether you believe your doctor, (based on the doctor's reputation and authority to make the correct decisions for you), and whether you believe in quantum mechanics, (which most people don't understand). In the first case, you are placing trust in another individual's reasoning capabilities to correct your mistakes, in the second -- a concept can't correct your mistakes and your belief is wholly reliant on you understanding it. Many Christian denominations claim that belief in the concept of trinity is mandatory for salvation. I finally decided to leave Christianity after I heard a major figure in Christianity proclaim that anyone who didn't believe that Jesus is equal to God is not a Christian. I was "removed" from Christianity for being anti-trinitarian, (demanding positive proof), by that statement. I thought it was sad because I recall a major survey of Christian beliefs showed that only a minority of Christians accept Jesus' divinity, (or an actual heaven or hell). Most people I asked for clarification on trinity in my church eventually admitted that they didn't believe in Jesus' divinity but simply accepted that this disbelief didn't matter. Ghosthack wrote: Maybe because Jesus repeatedly makes reference to prophesies of the Old Testament that make reference to his coming? I'm trying to show a confirmation bias. Someone who believes in "trinity" will often interpret verses to confirm their beliefs, whether the interpretation is justified. Jesus never explicitly claims to be God. He makes references to Old Testament prophecies to support his role on earth at that time. In a few cases, he even seems to say that his role is no different than other believers. In one account, when accused of blasphemy for claiming to be God, Jesus quickly refers to the Old Testament which says all (believers/Jews) are "like gods". But then, Jesus quotes from apocrypha, (Book of Enoch, for example), so maybe it isn't that authoritative. I do seem to remember a process where you people ask me questions and I give you answers, and then I ask you questions and you give me answers, and that's the way we find out things. I think I read that in a manual somewhere. -- Haywood Floyd 2010 |
|
jorndoe
Investigator  Usergroup: Members Joined: Sep 06, 2008 Location: Canada,Denmark Total Topics: 29 Total Posts: 1018 |
#48
Just happened upon this related, demotivational poster out on the Net   People are to themselves what they think; people are to others what they do. ∞ ∑ 1/i² = π²/6 i=1 |
|
CudOfCow
Just chewin' the cud...  Usergroup: Members Joined: Sep 21, 2007 Total Topics: 10 Total Posts: 150 |
#49
jorndoe wrote: Just happened upon this related, demotivational poster out on the Net I'm gonna go ahead and give this a +1 You guys are doing a great job at, how shall we say....making shit up. all cows and puns not intended. "I would appreciate it if you'd refrain from thinking that I'm thinking things that i'm not thinking. Thanks." - Me |
|
Incision
Dust in the wind Usergroup: Administrators Joined: Jan 04, 2008 Location: The endless sea Total Topics: 25 Total Posts: 1391 |
#50
jorndoe wrote: Just happened upon this related, demotivational poster out on the Net  The only leaf it drops goes wide, Your name not written on either side. — Robert Frost, "On Going Unnoticed"
|
| |
||
Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.