Trinity and logic

[Ragna]

No, I'm not criticizing it today. I'm going to try to defend the Holy Trinity. I have actually seen many defend its inconsistency, I'm not entirely sure I think like them. In fact, I had never really thought about the matter, but I'm going to present my point of view.

It basically claims that the Christian deity can express itself as three persons. Until here, no inconsistency (Deus est pater, filius et spiritus sanctus). Then it says that its constituents are not themselves (Pater non est filius, etc.).

For mortals like us, we have, or at least I have, the idea of "one head, one person", or at least, one brain (one mind) one person. It gets really curious with siamese twins. If two bodies are joined by the back, or the thorax, I'd consider them two separate persons. But, if there's only one brain (like one baby I heard of with 2 faces, and probably there are babies out there with two fused skulls), I'd consider them 1 person in two bodies.

Now, what do we mean that God is a person, or three? Certainly such a great being doesn't have a normal brain, but we can agree He has some abstract center we can refer to as "mind", where He (or She, or It) forms His judgements, takes His decisions (assume for the sake of argument).

Take for example animals with simpler nervous systems, a fly. It has a cerebral ganglion which is more or less like a brain, but it's not really as important as in humans, and it has also other (less important) ganglia through its body (if you're wondering, that's the reason why beheaded cockroaches can go on living for a while).

So what is all this about? The reason why we consider parts or expressions of our being not different persons, like a leg, or an arm, is because they can't form "minds". But God could be like the siamese with different bodies, just that, in His case, His "ultimate center, ultimate mind" is over the normal expression of His mind in Jesus or in the Holy Spirit (which we could compare to normal human minds, i.e., Jesus had a Homo sapiens brain). So the "Jesus mind", the "Father mind" and "Holy Spirit mind" could constitute what we call persons, even if they're just expressions or parts of the greater being, "God". That they have limited knowledge compared to the ultimate God mind is explainable in that they are lesser centers, like the insect's bodily ganglia.

All this with the minor detail that they're independent and even chronologically independent, but hey, He's omnipotent.

Do I believe all this to be true? Not at all.

Is it internally inconsistent? That's the question for debate. Feel free to criticize my approach.

Also, an additional question for Trinitarian theists. What is the exact difference between God the Father and God Himself? I don't understand that part very well. Don't they manifest essentially the same, with the same roles?

[Ragna]

Hello and nice to meet you, thanks for your reply.

The Doctrine of the Trinity describes not so much who/what God is, that is impossible as who can fathom the totality of the Deity, but rather God in relation to man, and the manner of God's self-disclosure to man.

Having said that, it's not quite as you say, as this would imply a deity that is separate from the persons, so it implies a fourth (Meister Eckhart got into sticky waters on this point).
Also, a single deity expressing itself through multiple means is an error we call 'modalism', in that it implies one God in three modes of being (the old analogy of water/ice/steam is also an error).

Firstly, I would like to point out that if it's truly unfathomable any thought on it is fruitless. But seeing your reply you don't seem to consider it such an impossible topic.

My analogy actually needs no meta-God to control each center in the trinity. You're right, so I better modify it. What about that each part is an existent part of God, defining God as all the three things together?

In a human being you surely can get the things wrong because you're used to having a single brain controlling secondary centers like ganglia. But conversely think of having three equally controlling centers - there's no need for a higher meta-center to control them all. They operate in harmony doing their own tasks.

Then it says that its constituents are not themselves ...

I think you've read that wrong? What the doctrine says is that there are Three Persons, who are distinct from each other.

Look at this image.

It says: "The father is not the son, the son is not the holy spirit and the holy spirit is not the father".

But God could be like the siamese with different bodies, just that, in His case, His "ultimate center, ultimate mind" is over the normal expression of His mind in Jesus or in the Holy Spirit (which we could compare to normal human minds, i.e., Jesus had a Homo sapiens brain). So the "Jesus mind", the "Father mind" and "Holy Spirit mind" could constitute what we call persons, even if they're just expressions or parts of the greater being, "God".

It's an appealing analogy, and close to what Eckhart was talking about with his "Ground of Being", but it does set up a number of paradoxes:
1) There is no 'ultimate centre' anterior to the Trinity
2) There is no 'greater being' of whom the Trinity are aspects or manifestations

I have absolutely no need for 1) or 2) in my analogy. I modify it then, as I see I have suggested one like that, but actually it could work without any prior center.

That they have limited knowledge compared to the ultimate God mind is explainable in that they are lesser centers, like the insect's bodily ganglia.

Oooh, no, no, no. This would render the Trinity as determinate, relative and contingent beings, not gods at all, and certainly not God.

I'm attempting to explain facts about what I've heard of descriptions of God's forms. For example, Jesus committed human mistakes like not knowing whether fruits were ripe (or something like that). Are you denying there are such events in the Bible?

Also, how can Jesus not be contingent. Are you implying man's fall was necessary? Then didn't Adam and Eve have free will?

They are most certainly not chronologically independent, and essentially not independent at all.

Well, I was thinking that Jesus was not attached to the holy spirit - mainly because there was a time when there was no Jesus (like 100 BC). I'm not saying ontologically independent, I'm talking about the circumstances.

Sadly, it's not consistent with regard to the Trinity of Christianity.

At least I tried!

...What is the exact difference between God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit?
The difference(s) are exterior, and purely relational. For example, take Jim ... he's a son (obviously), but is he a father, a husband? He can enter into any number of relations, without in any way effecting his substantial nature as a being.

The point is, the way we see the Persons, as Father, Son or Spirit, does not effect them essentially, but rather 'locates' them in an external relationship.

Actually this appears consistent, but the pitfall is that you can be both a son and a father because you have a father and a son respectively, as discrete and distinct entities. But being your own father is a completely different story.

So we have God's isness, and His knowledge of His isness ... the first we call Father, the second we call Son. The Son is second not in any successive sense, for God's isness and His self-knowledge are aeternal, there was never a time, nor ever a state, when God is, but did not know that He is. But we can logically say (even though it's not true) that God's being must be prior to His knowledge of His being, we can say it only because the way we have constructed 'logic' insists that we must.

Logical laws are not human constructions, unfortunately. If they don't hold... it's over. How can one be prior to oneself?

How in the world would anyone know that?

Having 'faith' as to invented things is a fools game.

I think I have put this in the wrong place. Maybe the dogma subforum would be more appropriate, since this is a debate within the framework, not about it.

[TomD]

Hi Ragna —

Firstly, I would like to point out that if it's truly unfathomable any thought on it is fruitless. But seeing your reply you don't seem to consider it such an impossible topic.

Quite right. It's not impossible, just inexhaustible.

What about that each part is an existent part of God, defining God as all the three things together?

Sorry, that's been done too. God is not composed of parts, not is God a compound.

Look at this ...

OK. But that says the Three are one God, and are not each other?

I'm attempting to explain facts about what I've heard of descriptions of God's forms. For example, Jesus committed human mistakes like not knowing whether fruits were ripe (or something like that). Are you denying there are such events in the Bible?

Ah ... here we branch off into something else.

Jesus is 'true God and true man' (as defined at Chalcedon in 451AD), that is, the Divine Nature — the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity — united His Divinity to a human nature born of Mary, whom we call the Incarnate Son of God. But in His humanity, Jesus Christ was fully human, he ate and drank, pee'd and poo'd, burped and farted (although there was a time when the Medievals would have denied that!).

So in His humanity, He was like us, as we say, in everything but sin. this aspect of the Incarnation we call the Hypostatic Union, God manifest in human form. So yes, this is intimately tied in with the doctrine of the Trinity, but we should take care not to confuse Our Lord's humanity and His divinity.

(And there's more to the cursing of the fig than Jesus being mistaken ... but that's not to deny His humanity nor His fallibility.)

Here's another level of complexity for you: when Jesus walked the earth, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity was not absent from the trio, the Trinity is inseparable and insoluble.

Also, how can Jesus not be contingent. Are you implying man's fall was necessary? Then didn't Adam and Eve have free will?{/quote]
Ah, a raft of lovely questions.

Quickly then: the humanity of Jesus is as contingent as you and I. Man's fall was not necessary, nor was it ordained, but it was known. Yes, Adam and Eve did have free will, if they didn't, then the whole Abrahamic Tradition is a nonsense.

Well, I was thinking that Jesus was not attached to the holy spirit - mainly because there was a time when there was no Jesus (like 100 BC). I'm not saying ontologically independent, I'm talking about the circumstances.

Human Jesus, OK. Second Person of the Trinity Jesus, to the Christian, He is present and active in every book of the Bible. He it was who made the world ... He is Darkness that moved over the Deep, He it was who saw what He had made, and declared that it was good, He it was who spoke to Noah, to Abraham, to Isaac, to Jacob and to Moses ... He is the Pillar of Fire by Night, the Column of Smoke by day, He is the still small wind, He is the Burning Bush ... He is on the tongue of the prophets ...

At least I tried!

And good for you!

As a Catholic, and something of an 'armchair theologian', I'm never quite sure how to respond here. There's writings on the nature of the Holy Trinity from the get-go ... absolutely staggering and enlightened stuff, but one has to be 'hardcore' ... the Fathers of the Church, the Scholars ... then in more recent times there's Karl Rahner, Yves Congar ...

Actually this appears consistent, but the pitfall is that you can be both a son and a father because you have a father and a son respectively, as discrete and distinct entities. But being your own father is a completely different story.

Yep, but so is being God.

Logical laws are not human constructions, unfortunately. If they don't hold... it's over.

Oh, I'm afraid they are, they are how we construe the world.

There's the problem: The Trinity is not of this world, so there's no logical reason why the Trinity should conform to worldly logic.

God bless,

Thomas

[Ragna]

Sorry, that's been done too. God is not composed of parts, not is God a compound.

Maybe God's 'parts' are just as unworldly as everything else?

Look at this ...

OK. But that says the Three are one God, and are not each other?

That basically said what I said, that God is each of the three persons, but that the persons are not each other (e.g., that Jesus is not the Holy Spirit). So yes, God is each of them.

Ah ... here we branch off into something else.

Jesus is 'true God and true man' (as defined at Chalcedon in 451AD), that is, the Divine Nature — the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity — united His Divinity to a human nature born of Mary, whom we call the Incarnate Son of God. But in His humanity, Jesus Christ was fully human, he ate and drank, pee'd and poo'd, burped and farted (although there was a time when the Medievals would have denied that!).

So in His humanity, He was like us, as we say, in everything but sin. this aspect of the Incarnation we call the Hypostatic Union, God manifest in human form. So yes, this is intimately tied in with the doctrine of the Trinity, but we should take care not to confuse Our Lord's humanity and His divinity.

(And there's more to the cursing of the fig than Jesus being mistaken ... but that's not to deny His humanity nor His fallibility.)

Well, you seem to accept this pretty well, so why did you go 'no, no, no' when I said that the knowledge Jesus possessed was somehow more 'limited' to that of the three aspects of God together - that is, God? It's pretty much behaving as parts with different functions - except God the father, which is the most mysterious to me and the most (sorry for the expression) god-like.

Here's another level of complexity for you: when Jesus walked the earth, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity was not absent from the trio, the Trinity is inseparable and insoluble.

I think the thing gets more complex when Jesus did not walk the Earth. There was nothing to separate then, was there?

Ah, a raft of lovely questions.

Quickly then: the humanity of Jesus is as contingent as you and I. Man's fall was not necessary, nor was it ordained, but it was known. Yes, Adam and Eve did have free will, if they didn't, then the whole Abrahamic Tradition is a nonsense.

Exactly. So I'm confused now - you seem to accept Jesus is contingent, but you disagreed before. What have I missed? There seems to be nothing wrong the the contingency of Jesus in the trinity, it doesn't affect the model as far as I know.

Human Jesus, OK. Second Person of the Trinity Jesus, to the Christian, He is present and active in every book of the Bible. He it was who made the world ... He is Darkness that moved over the Deep, He it was who saw what He had made, and declared that it was good, He it was who spoke to Noah, to Abraham, to Isaac, to Jacob and to Moses ... He is the Pillar of Fire by Night, the Column of Smoke by day, He is the still small wind, He is the Burning Bush ... He is on the tongue of the prophets ...

Isn't that the father? Isn't this what the theologians tried to avoid when saying "Filius non est pater" (The son is not the father). You seem to be talking about them as merely different expressions - this view is certainly consistent, just that I thought Christians did not agree on this.

As a Catholic, and something of an 'armchair theologian', I'm never quite sure how to respond here. There's writings on the nature of the Holy Trinity from the get-go ... absolutely staggering and enlightened stuff, but one has to be 'hardcore' ... the Fathers of the Church, the Scholars ... then in more recent times there's Karl Rahner, Yves Congar ...

Yes, I'm sure there are people who actually have a lot of deep thought on this issue, and for which this is much more important than it is to me. I just wanted to explore the issue by myself. Thank you for your contribution.

Yep, but so is being God.

Oh, I'm afraid they are, they are how we construe the world.

There's the problem: The Trinity is not of this world, so there's no logical reason why the Trinity should conform to worldly logic.

We seem to disagree here. I believe logic to be absolute - look at the words I put in bold. Getting rid of logic is way more tricky than what you'd ever imagine .

[Ionian_Tradition]

So what is all this about? The reason why we consider parts or expressions of our being not different persons, like a leg, or an arm, is because they can't form "minds". But God could be like the siamese with different bodies, just that, in His case, His "ultimate center, ultimate mind" is over the normal expression of His mind in Jesus or in the Holy Spirit (which we could compare to normal human minds, i.e., Jesus had a Homo sapiens brain). So the "Jesus mind", the "Father mind" and "Holy Spirit mind" could constitute what we call persons, even if they're just expressions or parts of the greater being, "God". That they have limited knowledge compared to the ultimate God mind is explainable in that they are lesser centers, like the insect's bodily ganglia.

All this with the minor detail that they're independent and even chronologically independent, but hey, He's omnipotent.

I believe its the independence of these minds which creates the biggest problem for this argument. What we have is three separate entities which this argument seeks to unite through some form of interconnection with an " ultimate mind". The problem is that these entities possess independent identities (or persons) which manifest in the form of separate wills. (i.e. Luke 22:42 "Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.") One ultimate mind expressing itself through three separate entities still ought to retain one singular will. The fact that these "sub minds" have the freedom to manifest wills that differ from their counter parts suggests a discontinuity between "expressions". Such discontinuity seems counter intuitive to the notion that the "persons" we call the "father", "son" and "spirit" are ultimately separate yet congruent expressions of a greater whole.

If all three minds are free agents with the ability to manifest separate wills according to their own personal dispositions, in what way are they truly contingent upon this "ultimate mind"?.....And if indeed they exist as separate, independent entities possessing separate wills, can we truly say that three independent entities are in fact one entity without committing an error in logic? Without demonstrating a more concrete contingency between the sub minds in relation to the "ultimate mind", I'm disinclined to agree that these separate entities are indeed three congruous expressions of one singular mind.

[Shermana]

So what is all this about? The reason why we consider parts or expressions of our being not different persons, like a leg, or an arm, is because they can't form "minds". But God could be like the siamese with different bodies, just that, in His case, His "ultimate center, ultimate mind" is over the normal expression of His mind in Jesus or in the Holy Spirit (which we could compare to normal human minds, i.e., Jesus had a Homo sapiens brain). So the "Jesus mind", the "Father mind" and "Holy Spirit mind" could constitute what we call persons, even if they're just expressions or parts of the greater being, "God". That they have limited knowledge compared to the ultimate God mind is explainable in that they are lesser centers, like the insect's bodily ganglia.

All this with the minor detail that they're independent and even chronologically independent, but hey, He's omnipotent.

I believe its the independence of these minds which creates the biggest problem for this argument. What we have is three separate entities which this argument seeks to unite through some form of interconnection with an " ultimate mind". The problem is that these entities possess independent identities (or persons) which manifest in the form of separate wills. (i.e. Luke 22:42 "Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.") One ultimate mind expressing itself through three separate entities still ought to retain one singular will. The fact that these "sub minds" have the freedom to manifest wills that differ from their counter parts suggests a discontinuity between "expressions". Such discontinuity seems counter intuitive to the notion that the "persons" we call the "father", "son" and "spirit" are ultimately separate yet congruent expressions of a greater whole.

If all three minds are free agents with the ability to manifest separate wills according to their own personal dispositions, in what way are they truly contingent upon this "ultimate mind"?.....And if indeed they exist as separate, independent entities possessing separate wills, can we truly say that three independent entities are in fact one entity without committing an error in logic? Without demonstrating a more concrete contingency between the sub minds in relation to the "ultimate mind", I'm disinclined to agree that these separate entities are indeed three congruous expressions of one singular mind.

Exactly, no matter what they are stuck with the fact that they are separate minds and wills, you earn 100 internetz.

[TomD]

Maybe God's 'parts' are just as unworldly as everything else?

I would say God is not like anything else at all. God is unique in that sense, there's no 'other' model by which God can be explained or understood.

"God is uncreated and unoriginate, simply, beyond being, without parts, indivisible. The Divinity is both unity and trinity — wholly one and wholly three. Wholly one in respect of its essence, wholly three in respect of the hypostases or persons."
St Maximus the Confessor, "Second Century on Theology", paragraph 1. Philokalia, Volume II, p137.

There are three persons, but only one God, and each person is wholly and entirely God.

Well, you seem to accept this pretty well, so why did you go 'no, no, no' when I said that the knowledge Jesus possessed was somehow more 'limited' to that of the three aspects of God together - that is, God?

I assumed you were arguing that in the Trinity, each Person possesses a part or aspect of the Divinity. That is not the case, so it is not the case that the Second Person of the Trinity is limited in any way compared to the First (or indeed Third).

In His humanity, the Incarnate Son experienced finitude as we do, in every aspect of his humanity, being, knowing, acting ... but not in His divinity.

It's pretty much behaving as parts with different functions - except God the father, which is the most mysterious to me and the most (sorry for the expression) god-like.

That's because you're comparing God to a finite model, and that's my point. God is not a thing like any other thing; the rules of every other thing do not apply to God.

I think the thing gets more complex when Jesus did not walk the Earth. There was nothing to separate then, was there?

God was Trinity before the creation of the world.

Exactly. So I'm confused now - you seem to accept Jesus is contingent, but you disagreed before. What have I missed? There seems to be nothing wrong the the contingency of Jesus in the trinity, it doesn't affect the model as far as I know.

You're confusing the humanity with the divinity, and assuming that what limits the humanity limits the divinity. That's not the case.

Isn't that the father?

John 1:18: "No man hath seen God at any time: the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."

We seem to disagree here. I believe logic to be absolute - look at the words I put in bold. Getting rid of logic is way more tricky than what you'd ever imagine .

OK, but who's logic?

Logic is the of the principles of valid inference and correct reasoning. Logic examines general forms which arguments may take, which forms are valid, and which are fallacies.

I'm suggesting that there is a tendency to start from the bottom up, as it were, to take what we know and understand, and explain God accordingly. It's trying to make sense of something absolute and infinite, according to a relative and finite model.

I would argue the logical approach is to start with the proposition of God first, and then work the data accordingly.
"God is one, unoriginate, incomprehensible, possessing completely the total potentiality of being ... not to be known through natural image by any creature."
St Maximus the Confessor, "First Century on Theology", paragraph 1. Philokalia, Volume II, p114.

God bless,

Thomas

[Flail]

There's the problem: The Trinity is not of this world, so there's no logical reason why the Trinity should conform to worldly logic.

God bless,

Thomas

The overwhelming evidence is that the Trinity was concocted by man. There is not a shred of evidence otherwise. It is, therefore, clearly of the world and subject to the logic of the world. As such it is utter nonsense.

[TomD]

Hi Ragna —

Yes, I'm sure there are people who actually have a lot of deep thought on this issue, and for which this is much more important than it is to me. I just wanted to explore the issue by myself. Thank you for your contribution.

Just wanted to apologise is coming across a bit bombastic ...
... what I don't want to do is shut down your exploration, but rather open up vistas that sometimes are not immediately apparent. Sorry if I was a bit heavy-handed.

God bless,

Thomas

[TomD]

I believe its the independence of these minds which creates the biggest problem for this argument. What we have is three separate entities which this argument seeks to unite through some form of interconnection with an " ultimate mind".

Not quite ...

The problem is that these entities possess independent identities (or persons) which manifest in the form of separate wills. (i.e. Luke 22:42 "Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.")

The distinction is not in the Trinity, but in the Incarnate Son who is, according to the Council of Chalcedon, "true God and true man", so the distinction of wills, as evident in Luke, is between the divine will, and the human will, not the will of the Persons of the Trinity. The Doctrine of the Incarnation makes it quite explicit that Christ is the Hypostatic Union, a union of the human and the divine, without 'confusion, change, division or separation'.

God bless,

Thomas

[TomD]

The overwhelming evidence is that the Trinity was concocted by man. There is not a shred of evidence otherwise. It is, therefore, clearly of the world and subject to the logic of the world. As such it is utter nonsense.

Nonsense. It's founded on Scripture.

God bless,

Thomas