Exploring Trinitarian Logic

[Wrangler]

I can address them if you decide to re-engage

No! I will not respond further to what I already addressed! It is you who have decided to disengage by playing this game of doing laps on ground already covered.

If you don’t answer my questions from post#506 unconditionally, we’re done.

 

[Magdala]

If you don’t answer my questions from post#506 unconditionally, we’re done.

You're already done.

 

[Wrangler]

You're already done

Bye bye.

 

[Magdala]

Bye bye.

You already bowed out, because in response to being asked in post #505 to give your explanation of why the one God spoke in the first-person plural, you gave a number of how many times God is referred to using a singular first-person pronoun, which doesn't answer the question. After the first prompt to answer it, you misused an idiom, then ignored the second prompt completely, hence my saying, "Your bow out is duly noted".

 

[APAK]

We can express the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity (three “persons” in one God) as a set of propositions in this way:

1. There is only one God.
2. The Father is God.
3. The Son is God.
4. The Father is not the Son.
5. The Holy Spirit is God.
6. The Holy Spirit is not the Father.
7. The Holy Spirit is not the Son.

For simplicity’s sake we need consider only 1 through 4 (for 5 through 7 will stand or fall on the same logical analysis we apply to 1 through 4):

1. There is only one God.
2. The Father is God.
3. The Son is God.
4. The Father is not the Son.

The difficulty in defending the Trinity has always been that these four propositions are, as a group, logically inconsistent when analyzed from the standpoint of the three basic rules of logical equivalence: self-identity (everything is identical to itself, i.e., x = x); symmetry (if two things are equivalent, they are equivalent in any order, i.e., if x = y, then y = x); and transitivity (if one thing is the same as another and that other is the same as a third, then the first is the same as the third, i.e., if x = y and y = z then x = z). The orthodox doctrine of the Trinity fares ill in this analysis.

To make them logically consistent, it is tempting to sacrifice one of the four tenets – and most early heresies took this tack. Thus, Arius sacrificed the third one:

1. There is only one God.
2. The Father is God.
4. The Father is not the Son.
3′. Therefore the Son is not God.

and Sabellius sacrificed the fourth one:

1. There is only one God.
2. The Father is God.
3. The Son is God.
4′. Therefore the Father is the Son.

Both Arius’ argument and Sabellius’ argument are logically consistent because, unlike the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity, they satisfy all three of the aforementioned principles of logical consistency. Arius and Sabellius, although approaching the inconsistency from different perspectives, each preferred rationality to irrationality―even if it meant preferring heresy to orthodoxy.

Now, we Trinitarians have two choices. We can simply throw up our hands and declare that God does not have to play by the rules of logical consistency, thereby forever assigning the Trinity to the status of unfathomable mystery. Or, we can allow for identity and equivalence to be relative to their contexts. Thus, “Robert is good” can be consistent with “Robert is not good” as long as a different sense of “good” holds for each proposition (e.g., he is a good theologian; he is not a good golfer.)

To say that “The Father is not the Son” is likewise context-dependent and predicate-specific. One can maintain without contradiction both that “The Father is not the same person as the Son” and “The Father is the same God as the Son” by separating out personhood from Godhood. How to tease them apart is the ultimate challenge of orthodox Trinitarian theology.

Who want to take a deep dive with me here?

Well this is a large subject Red...late to the party...where do I start..

Besides reciting the classic top-level triune god model (tgm) and attempting to analyze it from that level, as in your OP, I will pick at it as 'a deep dive' as you suggested.

There are many areas to query...let's start with Jesus and his human spirit and nature and his so-called divine nature.

1. We all agree that Jesus was born with a human spirit that was (had to be) connected to God.
2. And having a human spirit, he automatically had a human nature.
3. And according to the tgm, having a so-called divine nature, he then automatically has a divine spirit, called God. He was also God

Logic then says: if his human spirit was connected to the Spirit of God how can he also be God?
Logic then says: Then his human spirit must be connected 'back into' himself, into his God spirit, like a closed circuit? There is no other way possible, in this reality.

Logic then says: if we are to be like Jesus when glorified and he is God, then we are also going to be God. And so there will not only be 3 persons in the mix in this model, with one so-called common essence, there will many persons now in the mix with all the SAME spirit connected to each other, like cyborgs connected to the queen.

Logic then says: The Kingdom Of God with be inhabited by many gods with the same spirit and nature....spiritual robots

Any takers on this area? Casual and calm as she goes Mr. Trinity....aye aye Captain....

 

[Johann]

Any takers on this area? Casual and calm as she goes Mr. Trinity....aye aye Captain..

Jesus’ Human Spirit and Connection to God
While it is true that Jesus was born with a human spirit that was perfectly aligned with the will of God, we must be careful to differentiate between the human and divine natures of Christ. The two natures of Christ, human and divine, are not merged in such a way that they cancel each other out or create confusion. Theologians have long taught that Jesus is one person with two distinct natures: fully human and fully divine. His human spirit was fully human, yet His divine spirit, as the second Person of the Trinity, remained connected to God the Father. This dual nature does not collapse into a singular divine-human spirit, as suggested by the logic you provided. Instead, His divinity and humanity coexist, with each retaining its full integrity.

2. Human Nature and Divine Nature
The claim that having a divine nature automatically means having a divine spirit called "God" requires clarification. Jesus’ divine nature is not simply a “spirit” but the eternal Son of God, the second Person of the Trinity, who is fully divine and eternal. The divine nature is not bound to a human form or merely a “spirit” in the way you suggest. Jesus was God incarnate, meaning that He, in His essence, retained full divinity while also taking on human nature. The divine nature of Jesus is eternal, and it was not “connected back into Himself,” but rather, it coexisted with His human nature in the one person of Christ.

3. The Logic of Jesus Being God and Human
You suggest that if Jesus’ human spirit was connected to the Spirit of God, it creates a paradox where He must be God. However, the Christian doctrine of the Incarnation holds that Jesus is truly God and truly man. His human spirit did not “become” divine, nor was it merely a conduit for God’s Spirit in a closed-loop fashion. Rather, Jesus, in His humanity, was filled with the Holy Spirit. He did not “connect” His human spirit to His divine nature in the way you describe, because both His humanity and divinity existed in perfect harmony without one overwhelming the other.

4. Our Glorification and Becoming Like Jesus
While Christians believe they will be glorified like Jesus in the sense that we will be transformed into His likeness, this does not mean we will become gods ourselves. The Trinitarian view teaches that we are made in God’s image, but this does not equate to becoming divine in essence. Christians share in Christ’s glory and transformation, but we remain creatures, not co-equal with God. Christ’s divine nature, as God the Son, is unique and unrepeatable. The glorification of believers involves participation in the divine life (through Christ’s union with us), but we are not elevated to divinity. The idea of becoming “gods” is alien to orthodox Christian theology and would violate the very distinction between Creator and creature.

5. The Kingdom of God and Many Gods
The logic of multiple gods or spiritual robots connected by the same spirit does not hold when examined through the lens of orthodox Christian doctrine. The Trinity teaches that there is one God in three Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The divine nature is shared among the three Persons, but this does not create “many gods” or a collection of gods with the same nature. The believers who are glorified with Christ will still maintain their individuality, but they will not lose their creaturely status nor become divine beings. In the Kingdom of God, there will still be one God, and believers will worship and serve Him as His beloved creations. We will be like Christ in terms of holiness and glorification, but not in terms of divine essence.

So--
While the model you've suggested might seem logical at first glance, it conflates various theological concepts, such as the nature of Christ, the distinction between Creator and creature, and the doctrine of the Trinity. The Scriptures are clear that Jesus is fully divine and fully human, but these natures are distinct and perfectly united in the one person of Christ. As believers, we are transformed into His likeness, but we are not made divine. The Kingdom of God will be inhabited by God and His people, with the distinction between the Creator and the creature intact for all eternity.

J.

 

[RedFan]

Before i answer your question, do you believe that God put together the Holy Scriptures?

In more precise wording, do you have complete confidence in God that, thru fallible men over thousands of years,
God was able to have His Truth penned down whereby it is trustworthy, accurate and complete for His intended purposes???

To answer accurately, please permit me to replace your formulation "God was able to have" with "God had." With that modification of your question:

Not quite. I am confident that the theological message in Scripture is trustworthy, but I think human authors could and did adorn that message with factual details that were not always accurate.

As to "complete for His intended purposes," I am not qualified to state definitively what all of His purposes were. But even if I knew them all, I could not state that the Scriptures give a complete explication. (For example, I am a Trinitarian, but I don't find a complete explication in Scripture -- if indeed His purpose was to give us one in Scripture.)

 

[APAK]

Jesus’ Human Spirit and Connection to God
While it is true that Jesus was born with a human spirit that was perfectly aligned with the will of God, we must be careful to differentiate between the human and divine natures of Christ. The two natures of Christ, human and divine, are not merged in such a way that they cancel each other out or create confusion. Theologians have long taught that Jesus is one person with two distinct natures: fully human and fully divine. His human spirit was fully human, yet His divine spirit, as the second Person of the Trinity, remained connected to God the Father. This dual nature does not collapse into a singular divine-human spirit, as suggested by the logic you provided. Instead, His divinity and humanity coexist, with each retaining its full integrity.

2. Human Nature and Divine Nature
The claim that having a divine nature automatically means having a divine spirit called "God" requires clarification. Jesus’ divine nature is not simply a “spirit” but the eternal Son of God, the second Person of the Trinity, who is fully divine and eternal. The divine nature is not bound to a human form or merely a “spirit” in the way you suggest. Jesus was God incarnate, meaning that He, in His essence, retained full divinity while also taking on human nature. The divine nature of Jesus is eternal, and it was not “connected back into Himself,” but rather, it coexisted with His human nature in the one person of Christ.

3. The Logic of Jesus Being God and Human
You suggest that if Jesus’ human spirit was connected to the Spirit of God, it creates a paradox where He must be God. However, the Christian doctrine of the Incarnation holds that Jesus is truly God and truly man. His human spirit did not “become” divine, nor was it merely a conduit for God’s Spirit in a closed-loop fashion. Rather, Jesus, in His humanity, was filled with the Holy Spirit. He did not “connect” His human spirit to His divine nature in the way you describe, because both His humanity and divinity existed in perfect harmony without one overwhelming the other.

4. Our Glorification and Becoming Like Jesus
While Christians believe they will be glorified like Jesus in the sense that we will be transformed into His likeness, this does not mean we will become gods ourselves. The Trinitarian view teaches that we are made in God’s image, but this does not equate to becoming divine in essence. Christians share in Christ’s glory and transformation, but we remain creatures, not co-equal with God. Christ’s divine nature, as God the Son, is unique and unrepeatable. The glorification of believers involves participation in the divine life (through Christ’s union with us), but we are not elevated to divinity. The idea of becoming “gods” is alien to orthodox Christian theology and would violate the very distinction between Creator and creature.

5. The Kingdom of God and Many Gods
The logic of multiple gods or spiritual robots connected by the same spirit does not hold when examined through the lens of orthodox Christian doctrine. The Trinity teaches that there is one God in three Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The divine nature is shared among the three Persons, but this does not create “many gods” or a collection of gods with the same nature. The believers who are glorified with Christ will still maintain their individuality, but they will not lose their creaturely status nor become divine beings. In the Kingdom of God, there will still be one God, and believers will worship and serve Him as His beloved creations. We will be like Christ in terms of holiness and glorification, but not in terms of divine essence.

So--
While the model you've suggested might seem logical at first glance, it conflates various theological concepts, such as the nature of Christ, the distinction between Creator and creature, and the doctrine of the Trinity. The Scriptures are clear that Jesus is fully divine and fully human, but these natures are distinct and perfectly united in the one person of Christ. As believers, we are transformed into His likeness, but we are not made divine. The Kingdom of God will be inhabited by God and His people, with the distinction between the Creator and the creature intact for all eternity.

J.

Well Johann you covered yourself with TGM as your response. And for it, it is nearly air-tight, although playing it safe and not answering anything outside this model is not what I was looking for.

That's not what I was expecting. I was expecting to go on a deep dive...with you or others.

I actually wanted someone to go sailing with me and investigate the logic and plausibility of Jesus say having two spirits within him...without taking the easier way out with historical data that I believe is false and dead wrong.

Just this so-called reality of two spirits in Jesus and then not being a human being, really does open up a large can of worms that I'm afraid no one wants to discuss; without getting huffy or firing across the bow and scurrying off over the horizon etc.

 

[RedFan]

I actually wanted someone to go sailing with me and investigate the logic and plausibility of Jesus say having two spirits within him

I am here. What's your logical challenge to the Son's two natures (you and @Johann have called them "spirits," but I prefer "natures" if you don't mind). I'll try to address it.

 

[APAK]

Well Johann you covered yourself with TGM as your response. And for it, it is nearly air-tight, although playing it safe and not answering anything outside this model is not what I was looking for.

That's not what I was expecting. I was expecting to go on a deep dive...with you or others.

I actually wanted someone to go sailing with me and investigate the logic and plausibility of Jesus say having two spirits within him...without taking the easier way out with historical data that I believe is false and dead wrong.

Just this so-called reality of two spirits in Jesus and then not being a human being, really does open up a large can of worms that I'm afraid no one wants to discuss; without getting huffy or firing across the bow and scurrying off over the horizon etc.

Well it's not so much challenge to place anyone on the sport. It's a real inquiry in aspects of the TGM without using its recipe and its ingredients to speak of its reality and logic. An observers outside view if you will that is ignorance of any TGM, that logic says glaringly, its illogical and unreal.

I just began by scanning one part of the ocean bed...there are many more queries in other parts for sure.

That's it.......on, nature usage is fine as long as you know it always has to come with a type of spirit and energy.....fitted for it purpose and design by Almighty God

 

[David in NJ]

To answer accurately, please permit me to replace your formulation "God was able to have" with "God had." With that modification of your question:

Not quite. I am confident that the theological message in Scripture is trustworthy, but I think human authors could and did adorn that message with factual details that were not always accurate.

As to "complete for His intended purposes," I am not qualified to state definitively what all of His purposes were. But even if I knew them all, I could not state that the Scriptures give a complete explication. (For example, I am a Trinitarian, but I don't find a complete explication in Scripture -- if indeed His purpose was to give us one in Scripture.)

The Scripture has the complete explicatory Revelation of His desire and purpose for creation and especially
man made in the image of Elohim = It is extraordinarily exciting!!!

I'm not understanding you. What does John's knowledge of the Hebrew language have to do with what and why he wrote?

Genesis is the Foundation of all Truth that would follow.

Genesis was written in Hebrew by which Elohim communicated specifically and unequivocally who Elohim are.

Genesis is the Beginning and Revelation is the End

 

[APAK]

Nature always wears the colors of the spirit - Ralph Waldo Emerson​

Emerson loved his God and knew that God Almighty created what we call nature, by his own Spirit, and provided 'lesser' natures or spirits under him to fill this world.

 

[MonoBiblical]

Why would you even think this?

The apostles were Jewish and certainly knew and spoke their ethnic Hebrew language.

It was precisely this God given Hebrew language AND the Holy Spirit by which the Apostle John knew what and why he wrote.

Ethnic Hebrew per the NT has Aramaic syntax or grammar. Elohim was not a word known by the apostles. It is unknown to Aramaic syntax.

 

[David in NJ]

Ethnic Hebrew per the NT has Aramaic syntax or grammar. Elohim was not a word known by the apostles. It is unknown to Aramaic syntax.

The Apostle were Jewish and YES they were familiar with Hebrew.

 

[MonoBiblical]

The Apostle were Jewish and YES they were familiar with Hebrew.

The later Rabbinic dialect was unknown and is post Christ. Aramaic is the earlier form which is in Targums, and the NT.

 

[David in NJ]

The later Rabbinic dialect was unknown and is post Christ. Aramaic is the earlier form which is in Targums, and the NT.

FALSE

The Jewish people had scriptures in BOTH Hebrew and Aramaic

 

[RedFan]

FALSE

The Jewish people had scriptures in BOTH Hebrew and Aramaic

But not until late in the first or early in the second century, when the Peshitta Old testament came into being in classical Syriac (a dialect of Aramaic). Likely John (the last NT writer) had access to the Hebrew Old Testament, but very unlikely that he had a copy of the Peshitta at his disposal. That would be utterly shocking.

 

[David in NJ]

But not until late in the first or early in the second century, when the Peshitta Old testament came into being in classical Syriac (a dialect of Aramaic). Likely John (the last NT writer) had access to the Hebrew Old Testament, but very unlikely that he had a copy of the Peshitta at his disposal. That would be utterly shocking.

JESUS and the apostle had access to scripture in Hebrew.

The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.”

34Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods” ’?
35If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), 36do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? 37If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; 38but if I do, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and believe that the Father is in Me, and I in Him.” 39Therefore they sought again to seize Him, but He escaped out of their hand.

 

[RedFan]

JESUS and the apostle had access to scripture in Hebrew.

The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.”

34Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods” ’?
35If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), 36do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? 37If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; 38but if I do, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and believe that the Father is in Me, and I in Him.” 39Therefore they sought again to seize Him, but He escaped out of their hand.

I guess I'm just missing your point. Nobody doubts that the Hebrew OT was available to Jesus. He quoted from it quite a few times. Why is this important?

 

[Aunty Jane]

JESUS and the apostle had access to scripture in Hebrew.

The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.”

34Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods” ’?
35If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), 36do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? 37If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; 38but if I do, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and believe that the Father is in Me, and I in Him.” 39Therefore they sought again to seize Him, but He escaped out of their hand.

Reading this passage in Greek we see a differentiation between “theos” and “ho theos” in these verses…..it’s one of the most obvious mistranslations where the omission of the definite article and the implied inclusion makes this passage an absolute travesty….

“The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God (theos).”
They were not accusing Jesus of claiming to be “God” (“ho theos”) but merely “theos” or “a god”…”a divine being”. A word used in scripture to describe any divine being….angels, as well as humans and false gods, including satan. (2 Cor 4:4)

“34Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods (theos)” ’?”
Who is he talking about? Jesus is talking about human judges in Israel who had his divine authority, rightly calling them “gods” (small “g”).

“35If He called them gods, (theos) to whom the word of God (ho theos) came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), 36do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God (ho theos)’?“

Yahweh himself called those judges “gods” in the full meaning of what that term “theos” means in Greek….you trinitarians get all carried away with your capitals and neglect to do your study of original language words. There were no capital letters in Greek…..so the definite article was used to identify Yahweh, who at that time was nameless among his people.

“Ho theos” means “THE GOD”…..the singular God of the Jews….Yahweh, whose name was not spoken, but still written in their Scripture. (Deut 6:4) English translations omit it altogether, using his title “Lord” which in Scripture is shared with many others, including Jesus. It is a title of respect, not a substitute for the divine name.

Only Yahweh is addressed as “ho theos”….Jesus is rightly called “theos” as one who was divinely produced and authorized by his God and Father for the mission he was “sent” to earth to accomplish.

Use the same reasoning with John 1:1 and you again see the same omission….
”In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with “ho theos”, and the Word was “theos”.

There it is in plain sight for anyone who wants to do the research……the definite article is ignored in the first instance and implied in the second, changing the meaning of that statement altogether…..
This is what trinitarians ignore to their peril….worshipping the wrong “god” is a breach of the first Commandment. (Exodus 20:3)