Exploring Trinitarian Logic

[Wrangler]

willfully ignorant means you say I am a liar. Typical JW brotherly love?

No, my friend. You have a psychological wall or as the Bible puts it, not eyes to see or ears to hear. Let’s return to the basics to avoid confusion and unnecessary confusion.

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.

 

[RedFan]

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?

No, I am suggesting that God has no need for and doesn't use logic. We do. Man can attempt to define Him "within a logical framework." He does not need to define Himself in any framework. That doesn't make him illogical. It makes Him alogical. He doesn't need to demonstrate reasoning because He doesn't reason. He intuits everything. (Whether we, with our limited intellects, find Him illogical is a separate matter.)

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

To me, it would be logical that He is both. But again, man uses logic. God doesn't need to.

But are you saying that this logic is unknown to you?

WHAT logic? GOD's logic? I just said that God doesn't need to use logic!

It is valid reasoning that, once you understand God and His attributes, you can form propositions about Him.

I agree. That's what we humans do all the time.

Essentially, what you seem to be advocating is the rejection of reason altogether.

I would never advocate abandoning reason. We humans need it to function. (Unlike God.)

God says, "Let us reason together," yet you would deny that God can be known or reasoned with.

Isaiah 1:18 is a cute anthropomorphic way of expressing that in communicating with humans, God must speak "reason-speak" as an accommodation to OUR reasoning skills, but He already knows everything without having to reason Himself. I do deny that God can be FULLY known, but I don't deny that He can be "reasoned" with in the sense just mentioned if He deigns to communicate with us that way.

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

Well, then I guess you should put me on Ignore!

 

[RedFan]

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.

I don't have, nor need to have, a definition of "brother" that MEANS "father" in order to disprove the validity of your proposed syllogism. All I need for that task is an instance of "brother" and "father" not being mutually exclusive. And I've given you one.

 

[ProDeo]

Scroll back another 8 verses -

Jesus told Mary, "I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God and your God" (v. 17). Since Jesus was to ascend to His God, it’s clear that He was not Himself "Very God."

Wrong.

Makes me wonder if you understand what you are criticizing.

. God, the Father
. God, the Son
. God, the Holy Spirit
. Three distinct Persons.
. All 3 UNCREATED [!]
. And They are ONE.

And so I read my Bible.

And the verse you quoted.

There are no irregularities or contradictions.

 

[face2face]

I agree. That's what we humans do all the time.

I'm releived by some of your answers, thanks!

Do you still beleive God is incapable to communicating to us by a logcal framework? That was my original question.

God's reasoning is rooted in His perfect wisdom, justice, and omniscience, unlike human reasoning, which is often limited by our reasoning, and experience...however, God must reason upon what He knows and if some of that reason is Logical in its application then I find it difficult you to explain that away.

Yes, He has infinite wisdom and Divine Perspective though this is useless if its not communicated through His Logos - I mean before God acts He must reason or purpose it.

Maybe the idea of Logic in your mind doesnt contain the principles of logic; reasoning, understanding, truth etc.

Anyways, I get that you are anti-syllogism.

Enjoy your day!
F2F

 

[face2face]

Wrong.

Makes me wonder if you understand what you are criticizing.

. God, the Father
. God, the Son
. God, the Holy Spirit
. Three distinct Persons.
. All 3 UNCREATED [!]
. And They are ONE.

And so I read my Bible.

And the verse you quoted.

There are no irregularities or contradictions.

We have fully explored how Jesus cannot be God the Son so no point in dealing with that again.

We did touch on God the Holy Spirit, and I believe there are at 6-7 seperate questions still unanswered in this thread which I can repost....Johann couldn't answer them, but maybe you would like to try?

No one argues God is not the Father and Jesus is the Son of God...and the HS is the Power of God often personified as it comes from God Himself.

F2F

 

[RedFan]

Do you still beleive God is incapable to communicating to us by a logcal framework? That was my original question.

God is fully capable of doing that. Indeed, He needs to talk "down" to us that way if he wants to appeal to human reason.

 

[Wrangler]

I don't have, nor need to have, a definition of "brother" that MEANS "father" in order to disprove the validity of your proposed syllogism. All I need for that task is an instance of "brother" and "father" not being mutually exclusive. And I've given you one.

No. You did no such thing! What you did was change the reference. My son has a son. That makes him my Dad?! Trinitarian logic.

 

[RedFan]

No. You did no such thing! What you did was change the reference. My son has a son. That makes him my Dad?! Trinitarian logic.

Your son having a son doesn't make him your Dad. I never suggested anything like that. What I said was that my biological father was also my brother (in Christ -- due to our shared faith) -- so there exist definitions of "father" (e.g., biological) and "brother" (e.g., in Christ) which are not mutually exclusive. You see this, don't you?

 

[Wrangler]

Your son having a son doesn't make him your Dad. I never suggested anything like that. What I said was that my biological father was also my brother (in Christ

And that is how you changed the reference! Your brother inChrist is Jesus, himself. God is not your brother because he is our father - yours, mine and Christs.

 

[Pierac]

Correct, the Trinity can't be understood, only believed.

That's what Satan said.... just believe me.... Don't look for scripture for support.....

Deu 6:4 "Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one!

Deu 4:35 "To you it was shown that you might know that the LORD, He is God; there is

no other besides Him….39 "Know therefore today, and take it to your heart, that the

LORD, He is God in heaven above and on the earth below; there is no other.

Deu 32:39 'See now that I, I am He, And there is no god besides Me; It is I who put to death and give life. I have wounded and it is I who heal, And there is no one who can deliver from My hand.

Isa 44:6 "Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: 'I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God besides Me.

Yet you say.... the Trinity can't be understood, only believed

The New Testament clearly states Jesus has a God and Father, both before and after his resurrection. We know the Bible does not contradict.

Joh 20:17 Jesus *said to her, "Stop clinging to Me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, 'I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God.'"


I guess Jesus having a God .... Is kinda stupid when you make him that God!!! Rev 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him

You can let go of your spritual ankles now.... Your theological Spanking is complete!!!

 

[Magdala]

The creedal Trinity

States “one essence, but three essences”, “numerically one, but also numerically three”, “one person, but not one person.”

If you can start making statements like that, well… you can claim anything!

I'm certain Trinitarians can see the issue

The doctrine of the Holy Trinity isn't the belief that God is "one essence, but three essences", but rather that God exists in three Persons: the Father, the Son (the Word), and the Holy Spirit, each distinct, united as one because They are the same Essence: love. In post #549, regarding the word "Elohim", you said that there's shown to be a plurality, united as one, which you presently don't attribute to the Holy Trinity, but you at least acknowledge that the idea of it is scriptural.

 

[RedFan]

Anyways, I get that you are anti-syllogism

Why would you surmise this? It isn't true. I like syllogisms. (I particularly like exploring invalid ones.)

And that is how you changed the reference! Your brother inChrist is Jesus, himself. God is not your brother because he is our father - yours, mine and Christs.

Your syllogism is invalid if it doesn't hold across all definitions of "father" and "brother." It's that simple. In formal logic truth functions, we would express your syllogism as hinging on the following three fuctions:

∃x(x is both God and Father)
∀x(x is not both God and Father → ‘x is God’ is not true of x)
¬∃x(x is both Father and Brother)

You cannot derive this third function without accounting for all definitions of Father and Brother.

 

[face2face]

The doctrine of the Holy Trinity isn't the belief that God is "one essence, but three essences", but rather that God exists in three Persons: the Father, the Word (Son), and the Holy Spirit, each distinct, united as one because They are the same Essence:

I mean essence in the sense of nature. But I understand you are right in your definition.

love. In post #549, regarding the word "Elohim", you said that there's shown to be a plurality, united as one, which you presently don't attribute to the Holy Trinity, but you at least acknowledge that the idea of it is scriptural.

Yes, it is clear that God operates through a plurality of being who are called angels and saints in training!

F2F

 

[face2face]

Why would you surmise this? It isn't true. I like syllogisms. (I particularly like exploring invalid ones.)

Because the two examples presented you rejected, you also replied by saying God could not communicate the Godhead through a syllogism. I believe you have since clarified this though.

F2F

 

[face2face]

God is fully capable of doing that. Indeed, He needs to talk "down" to us that way if he wants to appeal to human reason.

Not just human reason.

It was revealed to them that they were serving not themselves but you, in the things that have now been announced to you through those who preached the good news to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven, things into which angels long to look. 1 Peter 1:12

I believe the Angels also desire to look into the things Logos reveals.

F2F

 

[Pierac]

@CadyandZoe

Colossians 1:16
ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα
"For by Him all things were created"

ἐκτίσθη (ektisthē): Aorist indicative passive verb of κτίζω, meaning "created," shows that all things were created in Him, with Him being the active sphere of creation.

τὰ πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτισται
"All things have been created through Him and for Him"

ἔκτισται (ektistai): Perfect indicative middle/passive verb of κτίζω, emphasizing the completeness and enduring results of His creative work.

I just read this and believe it brother.

J.

The various popular English translation are at odds as to whether the Son is "the first-born over all creation" (as in the NIV and NK JV), thus first in rank, or whether he is "the firstborn of all creation" (which reflects a literal translation of the genitive case, as in the KJV, RV and NASB), meaning first in time, which would refer to Christ being the first-created being of creation.

We evidently need the wider context to determine which nuance fits best. It is clear that Paul continues his line of thought in the next verse, as he uses the conjunction “for”: "For in Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities- all things have been created through him and for him" (v.16).
Jesus never claimed credit for the original Genesis creation of the heavens and the earth.
He was in no doubt that the universe was God's handiwork.


Mat 19:4 He answered, "Have you not read that he (God) who created them from the beginning made them male and female,

Remember Jesus has a God…"Blessed be God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ (1 Peter 1:3).

Yet for us there is but one God, the Father, (1Co 8:6)

Mar 13:19 For in those days there will be such tribulation as has not been from the beginning of the creation that God (my Father) created until now, and never will be.

Hebrews 11:3 By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word (ῥῆμα/ rhēma) of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.

Please note that the word used here is not Logos as it is used in John 1 but rhēma .

Observe in Colossians 1 that "all things" created are not “the heavens and the earth” as per Genesis 1:1, but rather “all things in the heavens and [up]on the earth." These things are defined as "thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities." Evidently, Jesus has been given authority to restructure the arrangements of angels as well as being the agent for the creation of the body of Christ on earth, the Church.


This is the thought as we soon shall see in Hebrews 1 where the Angels are told to worship the Son. It is also the thought that Peter mentions in 1 Peter 3:21-22 where, after “the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who he is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to him, " it is the new Messianic order that God has brought in through Christ the Son that is under discussion. Just before his ascension into heaven at the father's right hand of power, Jesus declares that "all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me" (Matt.28:18). His resurrection has Jesus a new status, "far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age, but also in the one to come" (Eph.1:21).

All of this is to reiterate that this hymn of praise concerns the new order of things that now exist since the resurrection of the Son. An eschatological shift of the ages has begun with Christ’s exaltation to the Father's right hand. God has "put all things in subjection under his [the resurrected Christ’s] feet" (Eph. 1-22). Paul repeats this thought in the next chapter of Colossians: "and he is the head over [or of] all rule and authority" (Col 2:10). In the words we looked at in Philippians 2, God has rewarded Jesus’ obedient death on the cross by highly exalting him, and bestowing on him "the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow, of those who are in heaven, and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father" (Phil 2:8-10).

It is highly significant that in verse 18 Jesus attains to a supreme position, meaning that it he did not have it already. Thus he cannot have preexisted as God. If he did his final status would be more of a demotion than the promotion described by Paul.

If Jesus was God in the flesh then it is impossible to be a man. He would have been something entirely else. Not a man. This is why Jesus has to learn wisdom, Luke 2:40, Luke 2:52. God is all knowing. He does not need to learn anything. Paul tells us Jesus is a priest after the order of Melchizedek, and something else.

Heb 5:6 "You are a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek." 5 In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence. 8 Although he was a son, he learned obedience through what he suffered.

It is an insult to say that God learned obedience! Jesus learned obedience because he was a man, a man like you and me not a hybrid. Most fail to understand the concept of Agency. When you kiss the Agent of the one sent, you are actually kissing the one whom the Agent represents. When you worship Jesus you are actually worshiping the One who sent Him. Thus Jesus comments

NASB Joh 8:42 Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and have come from God, for I have not even come on My own initiative, but He sent Me.

Joh 12:49 "For I did not speak on My own initiative, but the Father Himself who sent Me has given Me a commandment as to what to say and what to speak.

There is no God in the flesh hybrid (Theos aner) in these verses.

If Jesus is already God in the flesh then He can not have a God because it would be two Gods not one. Yet, scripture clearly tell us he does have a God, both before and after His resurrection. Philippians 4:20; Ephesians 4:6; John 20:17; Matthew 27:46; Revelation 3:12; Revelation 3:2.

You can let go of your spiritual ankles now....

 

[face2face]

I guess Jesus having a God .... Is kinda stupid when you make him that God!!! Rev 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him

Out of curiosity, Pierac, setting aside your current beliefs, if you were a Trinitarian, could you explain how you might reconcile why Jesus needed to be a person who learned and why he had limited knowledge of God's plans in Heaven?

It seems evident that Jesus did not know the full historical significance of the Revelation and all its intricate details until he ascended Heaven.

F2F

 

[Wrangler]

Your syllogism is invalid if it doesn't hold across all definitions of "father" and "brother."

It is. It does. Changing references is what is illogical.

The biggest kid in kindergarten may not be the biggest kid in 12th grade. The syllogism has no reference. Willful ignorance.

You claimed there could be a sense of father that means brother - by definition. Major fail.

 

[Pierac]

@CadyandZoe

Hebrews 1:2
δι’ οὗ καὶ ἐποίησεν τοὺς αἰῶνας
"Through whom also He made the worlds"

ἐποίησεν (epoiēsen): Aorist indicative active verb of ποιέω, meaning "made" or "created," indicating Jesus' direct and active role in creation.

J.

Another New Testament passage is readily appealed to in order to prove that Jesus Christ is Almighty God. It is Hebrews 1. In this chapter, when isolated from its context, individual phrases seem to justify this Trinitarian interpretation. These phrases are: "through whom all so He made the world" (v.20); "And let all the Angels of God worship him" (v.6); "But of the Son He says, ‘Your throne, O God, is forever and ever’" (v.8); "You, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the works of your hands; they will perish, but you will remain…You are the same, and your years will not come to an end" (v.10,12). Read in isolation-out of contexts-these verses seem to say that Jesus is (Jehovah) God. Is this interpretation justified? Many expositors think not. Kuschel in his book, Born Before All Time? p.356. Is adamant that we do not have to "interpret the Christology of Hebrews in such an extremely ontological terms (in the light of Nicea!) (Ontology is the study of metaphysics dealing with the nature of being.) Kuschel comments that "the majority of exegetes" do not now assume "an extremely developed Hellenistic-syncretistic Christ-myth as a background to Hebrews, nor are dilemmas foisted on the text. Material from the Hellenistic Jewish tradition is thought enough to explaine the Christology of Hebrews." In other words, we are cautioned not to read back into the text what later traditions have taught us.

Although debate has centered around who the actual author of Hebrews is, we note that the his whole literary skill and theological argumentation is indebted to the world of Old Testament ideas. The reason why the book of Hebrews was first written was to encourage believers who were undergoing fierce persecution to remain loyal to Christ. These believers were Jewish converts to Christ and they must be encouraged to see the superiority of Christ over the old Jewish system of things. Christ is superior to the angels (who had mediated the old covenant); he is superior to Abraham, Moses, and Joshua. Christ is superior to the Levitical priesthood and Temple rituals and sacrifices.

This superiority rests in the fact that Jesus is the resurrected Son of God, not that he is Almighty God. If Jesus is the Almighty in human form, then the author could have saved himself a lot of the ink and papyrus. All he needed to do was write that Jesus is superior to all because he is God. End of argument.

But the opening verses of Hebrews allows no such interpretation. They run like this: "God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world (ages)" (v.1-3).

Dunn, in his book Christology in the Making believes Hebrews 1:1-3 is parallel to Colossians 1: 15-17, which I as we have just seen is written with eschatology in mind, not protology. This contention is justified because it is explicitly stated that the end-time has already dawned; it is "these last days" that are in view. We are again looking at the eschatological shift of the ages with the appearance of Christ.

Under the old covenant God spoke in various portions in various ways to the fathers in the prophets. In contrast, he now speaks through a Son. One of the ways God spoke in those days was also through the mediation of angels (see Heb. 2:2). This means, amongst other things, that God's message to Israel was not through a preexistent Son who was an angel, as Jehovah witnesses believe (they teach that Jesus was Michael the archangel). Nor can it mean-as many Trinitarians think-that Jesus was the "the angel of the LORD" who appeared on numerous OT occasions. Nor indeed can it mean, according to later Nicene "orthodoxy," that God spoke to the fathers in Old Testament days through a preexistent Son.

For the opening verse of Hebrews testifies that before the birth of Jesus there was no Son of God as God's messenger to men. It is axiomatic that in the Old Testament God did not speak through the Son. Bluntly then: What emerges from the first two verses of the book of Hebrews is that Jesus was not God's agent to Israel in Old Testament times.

The Son-through whom God has in these end-times spoken-has been "appointed heir of all things" (v.2). This language of the delegation of all authority to Jesus as Son reminds us of the many times Jesus said that his authority was given to him (John 5:22, 26-27). And just when was this authority, this appointment given to him? It was given to him after his resurrection as the reward for his obedience (see Acts 2:36; Phil. 2:9-11; Rom. 1:4; Acts 17:31).

Then comes the statement that through his appointed heir of all things God "made the world" (v.2). The old KJV translation has "through whom He made the worlds." Again, the way this is translated predisposes are tradition-bound minds to run along a well-worn rut. We tend to immediately think of the Genesis creation at the beginning of the universe. But the word used for "worlds" here is the word for "ages" (it is the word from which we get our English word eon/s). The writer is not speaking of the Genesis creation of the heavens and the earth. He is speaking about time periods, epochs. In Jewish thinking there were classically two great ages. The first is the present and evil age. The next will be the Messianic age to come. And Hebrews 1:2 is speaking of the world-or more precisely-the Messianic age to come. He goes on to tell us that through Jesus’ sacrificial death on the cross a new way has been opened up for us to enter the new earth and the new heavens of the future Messianic Kingdom when it dawns.

This "appointed heir of all things" is the agent, the mediator through (dia) whom God has-in prospect-brought about the new Messianic age. The eschatological Son "is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature" (v.3).

Kuschel in his book, Born Before All Time? p.356

The eschatological contexts in the present participles used in these statements (literally: he, being reflection and stamp) make it clear that here there can be no question of any protological statement about preexistence or a statement about the earthly life of the Son, but a statement about the significance of the son for the community in the present.

Again Dunn, in his book Christology in the Making, p.208 writes:

Christ is the Son who is the eschatological climax ("in these last days") to all God's earlier and more fragmentary revelation (v.1-2a); that climatic revelation focuses on his sacrifice for sins, and exaltation to God's right hand (v.3d-e).

In other words, there is not any intimation here in this end-time contexts that Christ is seen as the preexistent God the son, second member of the Trinity. True, this Son now "upholds all things by the word of his power" (v.3b). But it is the new creation-the Messianic age-that is held together by his (authorized and delegated) power.

And in that new age even the Angels will worship the Son, for he has "become as much better than the angels, as he has inherited a more excellent name than they" (v.4). This is what the Father had decreed through the prophets long ago (v.5). If there's any doubt that Christ the Son will be worshiped in that glorious new age the author dispels such a question by promising that "when He [God] again brings the first-born into the world, He says, ‘And let all the angels of God worship him’" (v.6). At the Second Coming the Father's decree will become history. Every knee, whether in heaven or on earth, will pay homage to the Son. Jesus will then "sit on the throne of his glory" (Matt. 25:31).

This worship of Jesus the Son does not make him Almighty God: later in Hebrews 2 Jesus is seen leading his "brethren"-the redeemed church-in the (ultimate) worship of God the Father (Heb. 2: 12-13). This act of (relative) worship of Jesus by the angels will honor the Father, for it is His will they do this (Phil. 2:9-11). Then the ultimate act of Jesus’ own worship of God the Father will be "when he delivers up the kingdom to the God and Father, when he has abolished all rule and all authority and power" (1 Cor 15:24). When all things are subjected to Christ, including the angelic host, "then the Son himself will also be subjected to the One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all in all" (1 Cor 15:28). "As representing the divine majesty of the father, the Messianic title ‘god’ will be applied to Jesus, as it once was to the judges of Israel who foreshadowed the supreme judge of Israel, the Messiah (Ps.82:6).