Exploring Trinitarian Logic

[RedFan]

That they have different definitions is irrelevant beyond the fact that the terms are mutually exclusive. Therefore, P1 and P2 remain valid. Not sure why you refuse to accept this simple syllogism other than its doctrinal implications.

Well, I have explained my thinking as best I can. Here, and in my OP, which I urge you to go back and reread.

There are a billion Trinitarians on the planet. A syllogism as simple as yours, if valid across all possible definitions of "father" and "brother," would have stopped Trinitarianism in its tracks long ago!

 

[wooddog]

Of course-why not, but I have wonderful Messianic friends.

J.

No doubt Messianic Christians wonder about trinity also.

 

[David in NJ]

Well, I have explained my thinking as best I can. Here, and in my OP, which I urge you to go back and reread.

There are a billion Trinitarians on the planet. A syllogism as simple as yours, if valid across all possible definitions of "father" and "brother," would have stopped Trinitarianism in its tracks long ago!

whatza trinytariun???

 

[RedFan]

whatza trinytariun???

Beats me!

 

[Wrangler]

there is a sense in which God is our father (let's call that sense "God the Father") and in which Jesus is our brother (let's call that sense "God the Son"), yet "Jesus is NOT God" wouldn't be a necessary conclusion.

No. This is very bad concept formation. God is "our father" in the sense he is THE creator. There is no sense in which God is NOT God. And there is no sense in which God is not THE creator.

The syllogism is not trying to prove God is God or that God is THE creator. God. YHWH. Creator. Father. Are all synonyms.

Jesus is none of these. Son. Brother. Anointed. Christ All these terms apply to Jesus. None of these terms apply to God.

1. Who is our father, our Creator? The Lord God.
2. Who is our brother, through whom we are saved? The Lord Jesus.
3. God is the father, creator of Jesus.

1 This letter is from Paul, chosen by the will of God to be an apostle of Christ Jesus.​

I am writing to God’s holy people in Ephesus,[a] who are faithful followers of Christ Jesus.​

2 May God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ give you grace and peace.​

3 All praise to God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,​

 

[Johann]

No doubt Messianic Christians wonder about trinity also.

I much prefer the Triune Godhead and no, my Messianic brothers and sisters don't wonder about it, they believe it.

J.

 

[Wrangler]

A syllogism as simple as yours, if valid across all possible definitions of "father" and "brother," would have stopped Trinitarianism in its tracks long ago!

Of course it is valid across all possible definitions. I already asked you to provide a sense where the terms are not mutually exclusive.

But since you bring it up, in what sense does father mean brother? And in what sense does brother mean father? This invokes the Law of Mutual Exclusion, regardless of a biological or non-biological sense of these words.

@face2face , this exchange shows the trinitarian pattern. Ignore questions. Do laps on ground already covered.

He supposes P1 and P2 are invalid on the speculation that there are senses of the word that might not be mutually exclusive. When asked to provide such a sense, it is summarily skipped over.

 

[RedFan]

Of course it is valid across all possible definitions. I already asked you to provide a sense where the terms are not mutually exclusive.

And I did. My Dad is my biological father and also my brother in Christ.

 

[RedFan]

He supposes P1 and P2 are invalid on the speculation that there are senses of the word that might not be mutually exclusive. When asked to provide such a sense, it is summarily skipped over.

See post 1427 above.

 

[Wrangler]

And I did. My Dad is my biological father and also my brother in Christ.

Oy vey! You are changing the reference of these relational words. My cousin is a father but not my father. Although we have different jobs, we are both fans of football.

 

[Wrangler]

@face2face , this exchange shows the trinitarian pattern. Ignore questions. Do laps on ground already covered.

He supposes P1 and P2 are invalid on the speculation that there are senses of the word that might not be mutually exclusive. When asked to provide such a sense, it is summarily skipped over.

See post 1427 above.

Here is post 1427. It’s not even from you or any kind f of answer to my question.

Then Jesus wasn't the "only begotten son" of begotten means created right?

 

[RedFan]

Oy vey! You are changing the reference of these relational words. My cousin is a father but not my father. Although we have different jobs, we are both fans of football.

The point is that there are senses of "father" and "brother" which are not mutually exclusive. So your syllogism cannot be valid across all possible definitions of these words. Can you not see this?

 

[RedFan]

Here is post 1427. It’s not even from you or any kind f of answer to my question.

Sorry, I meant 1472. Dyslexia setting in.

 

[APAK]

If the Son isn't God, the Father isn't either.

Horse manure. The Father is the ONLY and ONE God of all. Read your Bible, both OT and NT.

 

[Dan Clarkston]

I'll let you do your own homework on 1 John 5:7

First thing to do is to look up the translators note in the NET - do this then come back to me

Ghost is an old english word for Spirit... relax, it's accurate

I'm with the Lord so I won't be coming back to you...

It makes me smile when Trinitarian believers see threes and out of the gates...off and racing!

So then, you consider the writings of the Apostle John... to be lies then?

1 John 5:7
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

 

[Taken]

Many times. Daily.

 

[RedFan]

Ghost is an old english word for Spirit... relax, it's accurate

I'm with the Lord so I won't be coming back to you...




So then, you consider the writings of the Apostle John... to be lies then?

1 John 5:7
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

As one Trinitarian to another, I will venture some friendly advice: Don't rely on 1 John 5:7. It may be spurious. The Johannine Comma

 

[Dan Clarkston]

Don't rely on 1 John 5:7

So you are saying this portion of scripture is a lie that the devil snuck in while Jesus was on lunch break or somethin?

 

[Wrangler]

If the Son isn't God, the Father isn't either.

What verse says this?

 

[APAK]

I can live with that, the question i differ on is when was Jesus begotten? I have a mind to accept the scriptures as they read...
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” John 3:16
“He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” John 3:18

It's only logical to believe that if the scripture says God sent His Son, therefore God had a Son to send.

Amongst various scholars there is a consensus of opinion that the words found in the above two verses were not spoken by Jesus. This is because these scholars regard Christ’s conversation with Nicodemus as ending at verse 15. Whilst I am not going to debate this issue here, it is true to say that whichever way this is viewed, it does not detract from the fact that the Holy Spirit inspired John to write these words. This means that even if they were only John’s comments, they are as true as if Jesus Himself had spoken them.
John also wrote in one of his pastoral letters
“In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.” 1 John 4:9
On two occasions with His own voice, God confirmed Christ’s Sonship to Himself. The first was at the baptism of Jesus. The second was at His transfiguration
“And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” Matthew 3:17
“While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.” Matthew 17:5

From the above it can be seen that this Sonship was not because of Christ’s human birth at Bethlehem, not is it a result of the resurrection, but because of His pre-existent relationship with God. To put it another way: According to the Word of God, Christ had a pre-existent Sonship.

Well B.... There is nothing wrong with believing that when God 'sent his son" he meant just that, to sent him or bring him on a mission for his purposes since his birth, and nothing more. In today's Western culture of thought, this would be understood. Like, I'm sending my son to you, and of course most people would automatically know he was born and became baby then a boy and a young adult first....now truly a mature adult...

That is the most obvious, logical and faced-valued answer. Anything else would be speculation, or even a deliberate attempt of our imaginations to support who and when is the son of God that is not supported in scripture. We can imagine what or where he came from before God 'sent him' although the most logical and straight forward answer to this, is that after his birth per scripture and his youth years per scripture, God then at the right time, sent his son on the ministry or mission as we now know, for the salvation of Israel, and all nations.

This is how I read scripture on this subject...I try not to add in or speculate based on some other ideas or some common thought.

Yes, God had a son to sent, as he birthed him, his human birth, some 25 plus years before that time.

You see I cannot understand why you want to jump to some type of pre-existence then to another new existence of Jesus once again as another being or beings for scripture you just posted. I do not see your point here. There has to be a reason whey you have come to this conclusion.

It is that Jesus was not officially called the/his son until it was declared after his baptism by his Father? and then how does that mean that Jesus somehow pre-existed because of this declaration?...??