The Baptism of Jesus - Trinity or Tritheism?

[BradtheImpaler]

If I say sheep have wings in the natural world, and then say that according to the natural world sheep do not have wings, I am inconsistent. If I say sheep have wings in heaven and then say they do not, I am inconsistent

And if you say God is (intrinsically) 3 and yet (intrinsically) one, that is illogical and inconsistent. Follow your reasoning through. For God to be intrinsically one who represents Himself as 3 would be a form of Modalism, not Trinitarianism. Likewise, if God is 3 who represent themselves as one, that is Tritheism, a type of polytheism. But to suggest that God is EQUALLY and intrinsically 3 yet one, is the same thing as saying that sheep in the spiritual realm have wings yet don't.

Ditto the deity of Christ, which is part and parcel of Trinitarianism. One individual is supposedly FULLY God and FULLY man, as opposed to being some sort of "hybrid". But God, by definition, is NOT man, and man, by definition, is NOT God. If you are God you cannot be man and still be God, and vice-versa. So the proposition that Christ was BOTH God and man is absurd. The mirror-image truth, if you say he is both God and man, is that he is also NOT God, and NOT man. But Trinitarianism only states the "glass is half FULL" in these regards, ignoring that the "glass is also half EMPTY".

If God is 3 yet one, He is in an equal sense NOT 3 and NOT one - so also for Jesus being God and man. What we have here are conflicting statements, the same as "sheep with both wings and without wings". The end result is that anything these propositions conclude, in the affirmative, they also VOID out in the negative sense. And you, per your example, affirm that such logic DOES apply.

Therefore, the (orthodox) doctrine of the Trinity is illogical, irrational, and absurd. It cannot be true because it makes no sense, and if is held to be true, it would still be MEANINGLESS to us, such as affirming that God existed and yet didn't. The central doctrine and "litmus test" of fundamentalism is a meaningless conundrum.

 

[DivineNames]

***

 

[DivineNames]

Citing this web cite doesn't answer anything. How does it establish that if there is a supernatural world, it cannot have properties of existence different than the natural world?? This is just creating an appearance of an answer when you do not have one.

This is all completely irrelevant. What does it matter if there is a supernatural world with different properties of existence?

It will not save you from the practical problems of allowing (what we ordinarily understand) to be a contradicition into theology.

 

[DivineNames]

You are aware that theologians (generally) limit God's omnipotence to what is logically possible?

Do you mean some theologians you like best?? How about theologians who believe the Bible is inspiried and inerrant??

Omnipotence and Logically Impossible Rocks

http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/im ... erock.html

 

[DivineNames]

The last time you told me I was going off on a tangent, you did not demonstrate how. Again, you make a general statement on my going off on a tangent without setting out any basis for support--it's a way of fabricating an answer when you really don't have one.

Its a way of complaining that you tend to go off on a tangent... :D

 

[DivineNames]

You cannot demonstrate factually its incoherence, but by imposing a psychoanalysis on the possibility of my motives in my manner of responding, you believe a way is established to indicate that it must be.

Right...

let me quote you-

"Basically, it appears you very much just want to believe the Chrisitan religion is not valid, and knowing that the Trinity is essential to it, you want to confirm your belief by..."

You began any "psychoanalysis"...

 

[DivineNames]

Let's look at a key OT verse on the meaning of blood atonement.
Leviticus 17:11: For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul, cf. Exodus 12:21–27; 24;5–8; 30:10; Leviticus 4:4–8; 5:9; 7:2.

The Old Testament Law is based on the blood sacrifice of animals to atone for sin, as a substitute for the blood of Christ, until its time. Note--that's animal sacrifice for all the people. It is from a covenant based on faith.

I found this document which gives a Jewish view-

http://qumran.com/Refuting_Christianity ... ianity.htm

CLAIM # 3
"SPIRITUAL SALVATION AND A PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP WITH G-D CAN ONLY
COME THROUGH JESUS"
Missionaries claim that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory
of G-d" (Romans 2:23), and that there is no salvation from sin or any
possibility of a personal relationship with G-d without belief in
Jesus. Specifically with regard to Jews, their argument is that Jews
have always needed animal blood sacrifices to rid themselves of sin.
Since sacrifices were abolished after the destruction of the Temple
in Israel, they claim that today Jews can find salvation from sin
only by believing in Jesus, who "died on the cross and shed his blood
as the final sacrifice."

The Jewish Response

The notion that we are born condemned, and that without the practice
of animal sacrifices Jews cannot atone for their sins, represents a
blatant misinterpretation of the Jewish Bible.

First of all, the Bible teaches that sin is an act, not a state of
being. Mankind was created with an inclination to do evil (Genesis
8:21), and the ability to master this inclination (Genesis 4:7) and
choose good over evil (Psalm 37:27). Second, G-d gave us a way to
remove our sins. When sacrifices were required they were intended
only for unintentional sins (Leviticus 4:1) and served as a means of
motivating individuals to true repentance. Numerous passages,
including Hosea 14, I Kings 8:44-52 and Jeremiah 29:12-14, inform us
that today, without a Temple or sacrifices, our prayers take the
place of sacrifices. In addition, we read, "The sacrifices of G-d are
a broken spirit, a broken and contrite heart" (Psalm 51:17) and "I
desire kindness and not sacrifices, the knowledge of G-d more than
burnt offerings" (Hosea 6:6). The Torah teaches that through
repentance, prayer, fasting, and doing what is right, everyone has
the ability to return to G-d directly.

This concept is beautifully illustrated in the books of Jonah and
Esther, where both Jews and non-Jews repented, prayed to G-d and were
forgiven for their sins without having offered any sacrifices.

Missionaries often misinterpret the Jewish tradition that "the
suffering of the righteous is a form of atonement." Jewish sources
are clear that this concept pertains only to the alleviation of
Divine punishment that was decreed upon the Jewish people as a whole.
It does not pertain to the removal of an individual's sin. Every
person has the responsibility to repent directly to G-d for his own
transgressions. (Ezekiel 18:20)

The Hebrew word for repentance is teshuvah--vcua,, and liter-ally
means to "return to G-d." Our personal relationship with G-d allows
us to turn directly to Him at any time, as it says in Malachi
3:7, "Return to Me and I shall return to you," and in Ezekiel
18:27, "When the wicked man turns away from his wickedness that he
has committed, and does that which is lawful and right, he shall save
his soul alive." Additionally, G-d is extremely compassionate and
forgiving as is indicated in Daniel 9:18, "We do not present our
supplications before You because of our righteousness, but because of
Your abundant mercy."

Contrary to the New Testament (Romans 4:15-16) portrayal of the
commandments as a curse and stumbling block, King David says in Psalm
19:7 that "the Law of G-d is perfect, restoring the soul."

King Solomon said that the main purpose of humanity is to believe in
G-d and keep his commandments as is stated in Ecclesiastes 12:13-
14: "The end of the matter, when all is said and done: Be in awe of G-
d and keep his commandments, for that is the whole person."

Deuteronomy 30:11-14 teaches that this path to G-d is unquestionably
within our grasp. Isaiah 42:6 teaches that it is the role of Judaism
and the Jewish nation to show the world this path by serving as
a "light to the nations."

 

[DivineNames]

So if the scripture plainly said that God was God and yet NOT God, you would believe that, and believe that it was not a self-contradictory proposition?

If a proposition is basically meaningless to us, as your example certainly appears to be in my view, I think it becomes very questionable that you can talk about it perhaps being possible in a "supernatural sphere".

If a proposition is that meaningless, we aren't sure if it has any "content" at all. How can we start speculating that it could be actual? What could be actual?

The proposition can only be meaningless to you, because you simply prefer not to believe a supernatural world is possible that has different properties than the natural world.

"God was God and yet NOT God"


It looks fairly meaningless to me, but you seem to think different. Good! you can explain what meaning the statement has!

Now, you are quoting me out of context, to create an appearance of an answer, when you do not have one. What you quoted of my post is what I said the Bible does not say. Now you want me to explain the meaning of what the Bible does not say.

How have I quoted you out of context?

 

[DivineNames]

There is no abuse of logic in the Bible on representing the Trinity; it is consisent throughout Scripture; but there is often trick logic to finding ways to deny it.

Lets assume that the Bible is consisent throughout in portraying God as a "tri-unity". That the Bible is consistent in this, doesn't show that the doctrine itself is consistent.

I could consistently say that sheep have wings. Nevertheless, wings are not consistent with sheep!

Again, you want to apply the laws from one realm to another realm, but you have no logical way for establishing that necessity.

Rather, you have no way to establish that the Trinity (as you conceive it) is definitely possible.

Even if the Bible is consistent in portraying God as a "tri-unity", this doesn't show that a "tri-unity" kind of God is a possible thing that could exist.

Therefore, you have no business making the claim:

"There is no abuse of logic in the Bible on representing the Trinity".

 

[DivineNames]

And you, per your example, affirm that such logic DOES apply.

(I think) that MPaul can accept the paradox of God being genuinely one and genuinely three, but not the paradox of God being genuinely a Trinity and genuinely not a Trinity.

(I think) you are saying that this is inconsistent of him.

If my summary is correct, then I agree with you.

 

[kwag_myers]

You are aware that theologians (generally) limit God's omnipotence to what is logically possible?

Am I the only one here who sees this statement as a complete contradiction unto itself, an oxymoron?

Omni means all. How can all be limited? :roll: I suppose omnipresent means that God is everywhere that He can be. But then, aren't we all? Isn't everyone limited in power and in presence? To bring God down to our level of understanding is completely contrary to scripture. Matthew 19:26; 1 Corinthians 1:19; 2 Timothy 3:2-7.

According to 1 Corinthians 8:6, there is only one God, and there is only one Jesus. You'll need to show me where the Bible says that God along is a trinity.

 

[BradtheImpaler]

According to 1 Corinthians 8:6, there is only one God, and there is only one Jesus. You'll need to show me where the Bible says that God along is a trinity.

What are you saying here? :-?

 

[MPaul]

Hallelujah #angel ...now we're getting somewhere.

So a violation of what we (here in the "natural realm") understand to be logical would still represent a violation of logic in the "spiritual realm"? And, conversely, what we would term illogical and inconsistent (such as preposing that something or someone "is AND isn't") would also be illogical and inconsistent in that spiritual realm?

What a totally ridiculous response. Because human logic operates the same way in each realm does not mean the properties of existence in each realm must be the same. I'll give you an example. Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are contradictiory. To resolve the contradiction, scientists have theorized String Theory. String Theory indicates there are 11 dimensions and also parallel universes, each of which can have completely different properties of existence. The problem scientists have with Sting Theory is not that it is illogical. Mathmatical equations are consistent with the theory indicating its logic. The problem is there is no way to test the theory in a laboratory. No one says, "don't bother to find a way to test it, as it indicates the properties of existence in parallel univeses can be different, so it isn't possible, because that's not logical." It is logical.

To say as you do, that because the supernatural realm is different than the natural realm, it is illogical, is a completely bogus argument.

But to suggest that God is EQUALLY and intrinsically 3 yet one, is the same thing as saying that sheep in the spiritual realm have wings yet don't.

If God only existed in the natural world, this would be a contradiction. However, it is not a contradiction to say the properties of the spiritual world are different than the natural world, or that the spiritual exisitence of one realm can affect another. Again, in String Theory, one part of the theory is that the big bang occurred due to parallel universes bumping into each other.

Therefore, the (orthodox) doctrine of the Trinity is illogical, irrational, and absurd. It cannot be true because it makes no sense, and if is held to be true, it would still be MEANINGLESS to us, such as affirming that God existed and yet didn't. The central doctrine and "litmus test" of fundamentalism is a meaningless conundrum.

This may be your belief as a matter of faith, but you have only resorted to bogus logic to establish it, mixing how properties must exist in different realms with how logic opeates. The extensive degree to which you resort to repeating the same fallacy only indicates a desperation on your part to find some way in logic to disprove the Trinity--an apparent personal and emotional investment on the issue, to force a denial that the issue can only be decided by faith.

You cannot demonstrate factually its incoherence, but by imposing a psychoanalysis on the possibility of my motives in my manner of responding, you believe a way is established to indicate that it must be.
Right...
let me quote you-
"Basically, it appears you very much just want to believe the Chrisitan religion is not valid, and knowing that the Trinity is essential to it, you want to confirm your belief by..."

You began any "psychoanalysis"...

Again, you resort to a bogus response. You quote me out of context. I first gave a long explanation on how his use of logic was improper and then noted the appearance that his denial of logic must be based on something personal. He demonstrated nothing in alleging I was incoherent, and he did not respond to my postion that not answering the question was based on irrelevance, and his allegation was based on a fautly premise, that you could not present you position without my responding to your question, and he was obviously using a device to create the impression based on pyschology that he was prevailing in his argument, when factually he was not.

Regards,

Paul

 

[MPaul]

Here, in the Rainforest of confusion that envelopes religion/theology, a single voice rises above the thicket, and a single eye sees clearly.

Divine Names - "Blessed is the womb that bore thee and the breasts at which you nursed"

This doesn't answer anything. It's just an attempt to create an appearance of an answer.

This is all completely irrelevant. What does it matter if there is a supernatural world with different properties of existence?

It will not save you from the practical problems of allowing (what we ordinarily understand) to be a contradicition into theology.

This is a totally ridiculous statement by you. In the natural world a fact of existence cannot contradict a principle of law on how existence occurs. That's one type of contradiction. However, another way the law of non-contradiction works is, that a statement on how the principle of a law operates cannot contradict another statement on how the principle operates.

In the natural world, one is one and cannot be three--that would be a contradiction of the properties of existence. In the Supernatural world, something can be three and one: it is not a contradiction of the properties of existence. However, to say that something is only one, and then not only one is still a contradiction. Saying that something is three, and not three is still a contradiction. But making the statement that something is both three and one in the Supernatural realm is no contradiction at all due to the sake of the nature of properties of existence, but it would be if a statement would then be made that the something is not three and one also. But, Scripture doesn't make that statement of contradiction on the Trinity.

You are aware that theologians (generally) limit God's omnipotence to what is logically possible?
<<<Do you mean some theologians you like best?? How about theologians who believe the Bible is inspiried and inerrant??>>>
Omnipotence and Logically Impossible Rocks

http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/im ... erock.html

I'll admit that your own logic is hard to follow, as you constantly ignore my responses, repeat yourself, and bring up subject matter not related to the issue (yes, you are the one who goes off on a tangent)

In the first place, how does your assertion that theologicans limit God's omnipotence to what is logically possible relate to the issue that the properties of existence in the supernatural realm can be different without being illogical?? How would that limit apply to, for instance, let's suppose, the sky being yellowish-purple in the supernatural world. Would you like to hold that the sky cannot be yellowish-purple in the supernatual world, because God's omnipotence is limited to what is possible??

And, in the second place, you ignore my prior answer to this position you already presented, and just repeat it. Like you believe if you just keep saying it over and over, I'll get tried of saying the same response over and over, and then your point is proven??? But I can copy and paste. Here's what I said in my last post.

"First of all, my statement was suppositional--the Bible only says all things are possible for God. However, not all the conditions on how the supernatural world operates are revealed to us, and we don't even know that much about the natural world, the universe is so large and complex. Scripture only reveals as much about the supernatural as is necessary for a relationship with God, and for an understanding of how it affects our life in the natural world." However, Scripture assures us of it representations through the reliability of its world view and its capacity on predictive prophecy.

Its a way of complaining that you tend to go off on a tangent...

And, your way of complaining about my going off tangent, without ever demonstrating how, is essentially becoming just an admission on your part that very often you have no real answer to the points I make.

I found this document which gives a Jewish view- ......King Solomon said that the main purpose of humanity is to believe in
G-d

It appears you are Jewish. Yes, the Jews have a tradition of rejecting Christianity, and they believe assualting the Trinity is the easiest way to go about attacking it. After all, most people cannot play sophisticated games in logic, that create the appearances of refuting it--or that is, don't want to waste time with it. But, is the Jewish rejection of Christianity well founded in Scripture, or is it, as the New Testament represents, based on treasuring their own traditions too much?? The New Testament is written by Jews. It is essentially a Rabbinic interpretation of the Old Testament (I hope you do not object to my not calling it the Hebrew Bible in mixed company. No offense is intended). Ahh--but it is a threat to the traditions of the Talmud. Hmm--do we have to say, that because the Jews want the Bible interpreted one way based on their traditions, the New Testament view of the Old Testament is proven false. Protestants believe in Sola Scriptura--(Jews in Spain helped them come to that principle by developing plain meaning Hermeneutics), and they believe the New Testament is Scripture. By their interpretation, all have sinned and need a blood sacrifice of atonement, which was prefigured in the Old Testament by animal sacrifice. Do you say that the Christians have to be wrong in interpretation because the Jews are right??

Well, this is another issue. Ormly kept raising more and more issues. However, I can see why you want to go off on another tangent. It takes the attention away from the issue of the thread, and I can certainly understand why you want to do that.

"God was God and yet NOT God"

It looks fairly meaningless to me, but you seem to think different. Good! you can explain what meaning the statement has!

Now, you are quoting me out of context, to create an appearance of an answer, when you do not have one. What you quoted of my post is what I said the Bible does not say. Now you want me to explain the meaning of what the Bible does not say.

How have I quoted you out of context?

This is ridiculous. Your responses are bogus. I already explained your technique. I said the Bible does not say the statement you quoted, but you just quoted the statement itself, and then said it has meaning to me, and asked me to explain it. NO, what the Bible does not say does not have meaning to me, but what it does not say can illustrate how a person is putting together a bogus argument.

Rather, you have no way to establish that the Trinity (as you conceive it) is definitely possible.

Even if the Bible is consistent in portraying God as a "tri-unity", this doesn't show that a "tri-unity" kind of God is a possible thing that could exist.

Therefore, you have no business making the claim:

This is ridiculous. I've said all along I believe in the Trinity as a matter of faith based on the representations of the Bible. In essence you are saying because we cannot prove the supernatural world exists, we're not allowed to believe in it. But, you cannot prove it does not exist, and the Bible upholds prophecy as proof of it being the Word of God.

Regards,

Paul

 

[DivineNames]

You are aware that theologians (generally) limit God's omnipotence to what is logically possible?

Am I the only one here who sees this statement as a complete contradiction unto itself, an oxymoron?

Omni means all. How can all be limited? :roll:

kwag_myers and MPaul:


"The paradox of omnipotence presents the theist with the question “Can God create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it?†This question, it is argued, cannot be answered in a way that is consistent with God’s omnipotence. If it is affirmed that God can create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it then it must be conceded that God lacks the power to lift that rock. If it is denied that God can create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it then it must be conceded that God lacks the power to create that rock. Either way, then, it must be conceded that there is something that God cannot do, that God is not omnipotent"

http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/im ... erock.html


Questions for you:

(A) Can God create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it?

(B) Can God sin?

(C) Can God create a square circle?


And obviously, you can't try and limit God's omnipotence to what is logically possible.

 

[DivineNames]

Again, you resort to a bogus response. You quote me out of context. I first gave a long explanation on how his use of logic was improper and then noted the appearance that his denial of logic must be based on something personal. He demonstrated nothing in alleging I was incoherent, and he did not respond to my postion that not answering the question was based on irrelevance, and his allegation was based on a fautly premise, that you could not present you position without my responding to your question, and he was obviously using a device to create the impression based on pyschology that he was prevailing in his argument, when factually he was not.

On this last point you are replying to the wrong person. I wrote that. NOT Brad. Doesn't give me that much confidence that you get the gist of what is being said...

 

[DivineNames]

Here, in the Rainforest of confusion that envelopes religion/theology, a single voice rises above the thicket, and a single eye sees clearly.

Divine Names - "Blessed is the womb that bore thee and the breasts at which you nursed"

This doesn't answer anything. It's just an attempt to create an appearance of an answer.

What on earth are you talking about?? :-D

I don't believe that anyone would seriously think that Brad was trying to "answer anything" in that particular quote.

And did you get confused again about who wrote the post?

 

[DivineNames]

This is a totally ridiculous statement by you. In the natural world a fact of existence cannot contradict a principle of law on how existence occurs. That's one type of contradiction. However, another way the law of non-contradiction works is, that a statement on how the principle of a law operates cannot contradict another statement on how the principle operates.

In the natural world, one is one and cannot be three--that would be a contradiction of the properties of existence. In the Supernatural world, something can be three and one: it is not a contradiction of the properties of existence. However, to say that something is only one, and then not only one is still a contradiction. Saying that something is three, and not three is still a contradiction. But making the statement that something is both three and one in the Supernatural realm is no contradiction at all due to the sake of the nature of properties of existence, but it would be if a statement would then be made that the something is not three and one also. But, Scripture doesn't make that statement of contradiction on the Trinity.

(A) If the "properties of existence" in the supernatural world can allow God to be "three and one", then is it possible that the "properties of existence" in the supernatural could perhaps also allow God to be morally perfect AND a liar?

If not, then why?


(B) If "properties of existence" in the supernatural world can allow God to be "three and one", then could further (additional) "properties of existence" be such to allow that God can be "three and one" AND something else. (like not "three and one").

If not, then why?

 

[DivineNames]

This is ridiculous. I've said all along I believe in the Trinity as a matter of faith based on the representations of the Bible. In essence you are saying because we cannot prove the supernatural world exists, we're not allowed to believe in it. But, you cannot prove it does not exist, and the Bible upholds prophecy as proof of it being the Word of God.

I don't remember saying that you couldn't believe in a supernatural world. Not even in "essence".

 

[DivineNames]

It appears you are Jewish.

sure...