Exploring Trinitarian Logic

[RLT63]

Everything is symbolic, including the churches. While these symbols point to literal truths / events, they must be understood through interpretation.

Happy for you to test this...

F2F

Seven churches of Asia - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Grailhunter]

Who is The Angel Of The Lord?

A character of the Old Testament....Unless the Angel's name is Yeshua, it is not relevant.

Who is the Angel of the Lord? It appears here and there but with no clear explanation.

Trying to decide who the Angel is leads to imaginative interpretation.

 

[MonoBiblical]

Where are you getting this from Mono?

12,000 were redeemed per tribe of Israel.

 

[Grailhunter]

A character of the Old Testament....Unless the Angel's name is Yeshua, it is not relevant.

Who is the Angel of the Lord? It appears here and there but with no clear explanation.

Trying to decide who the Angel is leads to imaginative interpretation.

 

[RedFan]

Your reference includes both natural and spiritual aspects, so the parameters of the syllogism are crucial. @Wrangler is using logic based on certain rules to arrive at a position that, in my opinion, aligns with both his understanding and the Word of God.

Let me show you:

Would you agree with this syllogism.

Major premise: The human mind possesses the idea of an absolutely perfect being.
Minor premise: Absolute perfection of being implies necessity of existence (for that which must exist is of a higher order than that which may exist).
Conclusion: An absolutely perfect being does exist—for that which must exist, does exist.

This is ontological argument using syllogism to prove a fact which some may find convincing.

Let me ask you a question. Setting aside the Trinitarian and Unitarian views, do you believe there exists a syllogism that God would recognize as true about Himself and Jesus?

Yes or No?

F2F

I'm unconvinced by your syllogism, Anselm! But to your last question, my answer is No. I don't think God reasons syllogistically. I think He intuits everything. We need logic. He doesn't.

 

[RedFan]

There is a flaw in your example Red.

P1 is rejected by Christ Himself, which means:

• P1 contains erroneous statements based on the Lord's words.
• P2 is correct, as only God has inherent goodness.
• C: A conclusion that is completely unrelated to both P1 and P2.

Jesus said "Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone"

You inadvertently brought up a verse that also supports the idea that Jesus is not God—how ironic, lol.

Rather than me giving you the reason why... can you discern the Lords reply?

F2F

Note: The absolutely perfect being example establishes consistent parameters and leads to a relevant conclusion.

There are lots of flaws in my example! I used it only to show that the same type of flaws plagued @Wrangler's example.

 

[face2face]

Seven churches of Asia - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

The churchs were real RLT but they also speak to the most important symbolic lessons...

 

[face2face]

I'm unconvinced by your syllogism, Anselm! But to your last question, my answer is No. I don't think God reasons syllogistically. I think He intuits everything. We need logic. He doesn't.

Interesting... so what you're suggesting is that God cannot define Himself within a logical framework...to also imply He is illogical. God is not able to demonstrate reasoning?

This would imply that it is impossible for you to know Him without any certainty.

It is logical that an Eternal God is not a God of the dead, but of the Living.

But are you saying that this logic is unknown to you? It is valid reasoning that, once you understand God and His attributes, you can form propositions about Him. Essentially, what you seem to be advocating is the rejection of reason altogether. God says, "Let us reason together," yet you would deny that God can be known or reasoned with. You sound like Cain, who limited God and walked away from Him.

You're in logical entrapment!? You are in a self-contradiction!

If the syllogism leads to a divine truth that is irrefutable, you still remain unconvinced?

And I assume when you say God intuits everything, you mean He cannot change His Mind or be reasoned with?

But what's more concerning about your reply is your limitation on God as though you assume he cannot draw to a truth using a syllogism.

F2F

@Wrangler this is not really my conversaton though its an interesting one. It might need you to bring full circle as Red has introduced a couple new ideas to consider.

 

[RLT63]

The churchs were real RLT but they also speak to the most important symbolic lessons...

They represent the history of the Church

 

[face2face]

They represent the history of the Church

I agree with that! That's why every chapter is filled with symbolism, which very few truly understand due to the various interpretive methodologies out there.

The correct interpretation is the same one used for Daniel and Ezekiel's prophecies: Continuous Historic.

F2F

 

[Johann]

I agree with that! That's why every chapter is filled with symbolism, which very few truly understand due to the various interpretive methodologies out there.

The correct interpretation is the same one used for Daniel and Ezekiel's prophecies: Continuous Historic.

F2F

Principles for Literal Reading

Understand the Genre of the Text

Historical books (e.g., Genesis, Exodus, Kings) are generally read as straightforward records of events.
Poetry (e.g., Psalms, Song of Solomon) often employs metaphors and hyperboles, requiring careful discernment.
Prophetic and apocalyptic books (e.g., Isaiah, Revelation) frequently use symbolic imagery, but sometimes contain literal elements.

Look for Explicit Indicators of Figurative Language

Words like "as" or "like" often signal similes (e.g., Psalm 1:3: "He is like a tree planted by streams of water").
The presence of visions, parables, or clear symbolic contexts (e.g., Ezekiel’s dry bones in Ezekiel 37) indicates metaphorical intent.

Examine the Immediate Context

A passage's surrounding verses and chapters often clarify whether the language is literal or figurative.

Example: Jesus' statement, “I am the door” (John 10:9), is metaphorical, clarified by the context that He provides access to salvation, not a physical doorway.

Consider the Cultural and Historical Setting

Many expressions were rooted in ancient cultural idioms (e.g., “a land flowing with milk and honey” in Exodus 3:8 symbolizes abundance, not literal rivers of milk and honey).
Apply the Rule of Consistency

Interpret Scripture with Scripture, comparing unclear passages with clearer ones.

Example: The "seven heads" of the beast in Revelation 17:9 are explained as "seven mountains" (symbolic, with further clarification provided).

Look for Authorial Intent

Determine whether the author meant the statement as factual or illustrative. For instance, Paul's instructions in the epistles are typically straightforward, while Jesus' parables are clearly metaphorical.

Interpret Visions and Prophecies with Care

Apocalyptic visions (e.g., Daniel and Revelation) often use symbolic language. Interpret such symbols based on biblical explanations or widely accepted historical meanings.

Tools and Techniques
Grammatical Analysis: Focus on word meanings, verb tenses, and syntax.

Historical Background: Use commentaries or study aids to understand the original audience and setting.
Literary Devices: Recognize hyperbole, metaphor, personification, etc.

Prayer for Guidance: Seek divine wisdom for interpretation, recognizing the spiritual nature of Scripture (1 Corinthians 2:14).

By consistently applying these principles, one can discern when to read Scripture literally and when to recognize metaphorical or symbolic elements.

Not by pontificating and philosophizing as going on here.

J.

 

[APAK]

Summary:

For the Trinity to be valid, there are irreconcilable teachings that Trinitarians cannot explain: Here are some which I have taken from this discussion

1. The true nature of Christ cmp to claimed dualism (This has no evidence at all!)
2. Separate Persons cmp to the confusion of Persons
3. HS is the Power of God cmp The HS is a Person of the Godhead (This is by far the weakest link in the chain!)
4. God manifestation cmp to Incarnation
5. Christ the Firstborn (begotten) cmp to Christ's pre-existence

I've found points 1 & 3 as being the most indefensible as seen by the lack of attempts to deal with the hard questions!

Point 2 is the real struggle for if the Trinitarian has settled for the confusion how can the accept the clarity which comes with seeing God and Christ as Separate beings? They need to unlearn the learned confusion of the Godhead before such clarity can be achieved.

Point 4 is difficult as the understanding of God being in Christ (Biblical) and God being Christ (Not Biblical) is the most difficult to prove / disprove.

Point 5 is easy to show Christ was a created being (from the dead!)

F2F

Yes, and this is what folks should be saying about Jesus' current status and nature is that it has drastically changed since his original existence or birth- he became reborn!

That he changed since he was created for the first time, pre-existing as a human being with one nature and one human spirit over 2000 years ago. And then he became reborn by his Father, at his resurrection, and thus re-existed or existed anew as another new nature with one spirit of immortality, of an immortal human nature. And we will be of the same one spirit and nature as Jesus, a new generation of reborn immortal human beings.

When in Psalms 2:7...
(Psa 2:7) I will tell of the decree. Yahweh said to me, You are My son. Today I have become your father.

That God begotten a son after his baptism, he meant his new birth at his eventual resurrection symbolized when Jesus came out of the waters and was anointed. A new reborn son of immortality would be created.

He could now be his Father in full, in spirit, in his new immortality,

 

[Wrangler]

I've been more disappointed with the logical analysis proffered as so-called "proofs" for and against the Trinity. For example, @Wrangler posited that

and my efforts to explain that his syllogism was not valid across all definitions of "father" and "brother" (my Dad, for example, is my biological father and my brother in Christ) met with no grasp of the issue whatsoever. Yet I suspect that if I had proposed a proof of Jesus' divinity on the order of

P1. Jesus is good
P2. “No one is good except God alone” (Luke 18:19)
C. Jesus is God

You reject the proof at your own peril. The claim that ANY syllogism depends on definitions (beyone mutual exclusivity) is invalid.

On top of that, you have utterly failed to demonstrate a definition of "brother" that means "father". Pathetic change in reference to pretend the problem you present is definition when it is you changing the reference.

 

[Wrangler]

There are lots of flaws in my example! I used it only to show that the same type of flaws plagued @Wrangler's example.

There are no flaws in the syllogism I presented.

Your claim that a syllogism’s validity depends on definition is incorrect. Syntax: P or -P is definition independent.

P1. Redfan is P.
P2. Wrangler is -P.
C. Wrangler is not Redfan.

P1. God is P.
P2. Jesus is -P.
C. Jesus is not God.

 

[Johann]

P1. Redfan is P.
P2. Wrangler is -P.
C. Wrangler is not Redfan.

P1. God is P.
P2. Jesus is -P.
C. Jesus is not God.

Clarify the Propositions

P1 and P2 assume "P" to be a defining attribute of an entity (e.g., "Redfan is P" and "Wrangler is -P").
The argument implicitly equates the relationship of "P" between the two examples without considering the complexity of the divine nature in theology.

If "P" is not carefully defined, the argument can be misleading because the terms applied to humans (e.g., "Redfan" and "Wrangler") may not translate to metaphysical or theological claims about God.

2. Challenge the Validity of Premise P2 in the Theological Argument

P2 (Jesus is -P) is false if "P" refers to attributes of divinity that God possesses.

Scripture explicitly affirms that Jesus possesses divine attributes (e.g., omnipotence in Matthew 28:18, omniscience in John 21:17). Therefore, asserting that Jesus is "not P" conflicts with biblical testimony.

3. The Trinity Refutes the Simplistic Argument

In Trinitarian theology, God is one essence (ousia) and three persons (hypostases): Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This means that Jesus (the Son) is fully God but not the Father.

For the argument to succeed, it must address distinctions within the Godhead, where "God" (P) refers to divine essence shared by all persons of the Trinity.

The syllogism commits a category error by conflating the distinction of persons (Father ≠ Son) with the unity of essence (Jesus = God).

4. Biblical Evidence Contradicts the Argument

John 1:1-3: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." This directly affirms Jesus’ deity.

John 10:30: "I and the Father are one." Jesus asserts unity with God, indicating shared essence.

Philippians 2:6: "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God." This explicitly states Jesus’ equality with God.

These texts demonstrate that the claim "Jesus is -P" (not God) is false.

5. The Logical Fallacy: Affirming a Negative Predicate

If "P" refers to divinity, saying "Jesus is -P" requires evidence. Denying an attribute (e.g., divinity) is not logically equivalent to proving its absence.

Without proof that Jesus lacks divine attributes, P2 remains unsupported, invalidating the conclusion.

6. Revised Logical Form

If "P" represents divinity:

P1: God is P (true; God possesses divinity).

P2: Jesus is P (true; Jesus possesses divinity).

C: Jesus is God (consistent with Trinitarian theology).

In conclusion, the argument is invalid because it fails to account for the unity and distinction within the Trinity, relies on unsupported premises, and contradicts explicit biblical affirmations of Jesus' divinity.

Sorry Wrangler-your'e out.

J.

 

[APAK]

Clarify the Propositions

P1 and P2 assume "P" to be a defining attribute of an entity (e.g., "Redfan is P" and "Wrangler is -P").
The argument implicitly equates the relationship of "P" between the two examples without considering the complexity of the divine nature in theology.

If "P" is not carefully defined, the argument can be misleading because the terms applied to humans (e.g., "Redfan" and "Wrangler") may not translate to metaphysical or theological claims about God.

2. Challenge the Validity of Premise P2 in the Theological Argument

P2 (Jesus is -P) is false if "P" refers to attributes of divinity that God possesses.

Scripture explicitly affirms that Jesus possesses divine attributes (e.g., omnipotence in Matthew 28:18, omniscience in John 21:17). Therefore, asserting that Jesus is "not P" conflicts with biblical testimony.

3. The Trinity Refutes the Simplistic Argument

In Trinitarian theology, God is one essence (ousia) and three persons (hypostases): Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This means that Jesus (the Son) is fully God but not the Father.

For the argument to succeed, it must address distinctions within the Godhead, where "God" (P) refers to divine essence shared by all persons of the Trinity.

The syllogism commits a category error by conflating the distinction of persons (Father ≠ Son) with the unity of essence (Jesus = God).

4. Biblical Evidence Contradicts the Argument

John 1:1-3: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." This directly affirms Jesus’ deity.

John 10:30: "I and the Father are one." Jesus asserts unity with God, indicating shared essence.

Philippians 2:6: "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God." This explicitly states Jesus’ equality with God.

These texts demonstrate that the claim "Jesus is -P" (not God) is false.

5. The Logical Fallacy: Affirming a Negative Predicate

If "P" refers to divinity, saying "Jesus is -P" requires evidence. Denying an attribute (e.g., divinity) is not logically equivalent to proving its absence.

Without proof that Jesus lacks divine attributes, P2 remains unsupported, invalidating the conclusion.

6. Revised Logical Form

If "P" represents divinity:

P1: God is P (true; God possesses divinity).

P2: Jesus is P (true; Jesus possesses divinity).

C: Jesus is God (consistent with Trinitarian theology).

In conclusion, the argument is invalid because it fails to account for the unity and distinction within the Trinity, relies on unsupported premises, and contradicts explicit biblical affirmations of Jesus' divinity.

Sorry Wrangler-your'e out.

J.

Entrenched in the complexity of the divine nature in theology. What a lot of nothingness....and may not translate to metaphysical or theological claims about God. In your dreams and imaginations and not in scripture however.

 

[Brakelite]

Do you know what eisegesis is? Imagine reading whatever you want into text.

You use the word believe but suppose is more precise. Supposition is not a solid foundation for doctrine.

Surely you aren't suggesting that there are not any scriptures that state clearly that God sent His Son into the world?

 

[Wrangler]

Entrenched in the complexity of the divine nature in theology. What a lot of nothingness....and may not translate to metaphysical or theological claims about God. In your dreams and imaginations and not in scripture however.

I don’t care who you are. That’s funny, right there!

What’s absent from Scripture is this complexity. The complexity is used to divert attention from the basic facts of Scripture:

1. The trinity is not in Scripture.
2. The trinity contradicts Scripture, which explicitly and repeatedly states YHWH is the only true God, who we relate to as father.
3. God cannot die. Jesus is demonstrably not God because Jesus died.
4. If Jesus did not die, fully and completely die, then he did not pay the wages of sin.
5. Trinitarianism denies Jesus’ full sacrifice.
6. The Holy Spirit is not equal to the person of God, as IT has no name or authority.

 

[Wrangler]

Surely you aren't suggesting that there are not any scriptures that state clearly that God sent His Son into the world?

No. I’m saying there are no Scriptures that plainly state Jesus existed eternally or even existed beyond our Creators plan for him before his 1st century birth.

 

[ProDeo]

You should have stated the positive.

The Shema, as presented in the Old Testament and affirmed by the Lord Jesus Christ, offers insight and understanding of the Godhead. It is important to read the Word through the lens of its original audience! This is where the Early Church Fathers (ECF) faltered; instead of following the Apostles' guidance on interpreting the Old Testament and its application to the New, they ventured into the realms of philosophy and mythology.

To be honest, your three examples above are rather underwhelming.

Let's cut to the chase -

Deut 6:4 “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us,

--------

Both are true since Scripture can't be broken.

Blessings Face.