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?

[1213]

I think trinity is based on following parts of Bible, and have been misunderstood to mean that there is many gods.

According to Bible there is only one God that is greater than Jesus. Also Bible tells that Jesus and God are one, the same way that his disciples should be one among themselves and also with God. If trinity means how God and Jesus and his disciples are one like in Jesus teachings, then it’s right.

I and the Father are one.
John 10:30

I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them through your name which you have given me that they may be one, even as we are.
John 17:11

that they may all be one; even as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that you sent me.
John 17:21

Does that mean that all diciples are gods? I don’t think so. I think it means that diciples have same understanding of what is right and do as well good works and love each other like Jesus teaches. Next parts may clarify more what Jesus meant.

Jesus therefore answered them, "Most assuredly, I tell you, the Son can do nothing of himself, but what he sees the Father doing. For whatever things he does, these the Son also does likewise.
Joh. 5:19

The glory which you have given me, I have given to them; that they may be one, even as we are one; I in them, and you in me, that they may be perfected into one; that the world may know that you sent me, and loved them, even as you loved me.
John 17:22-23

[Ionian_Tradition]

I think trinity is based on following parts of Bible, and have been misunderstood to mean that there is many gods.

According to Bible there is only one God that is greater than Jesus. Also Bible tells that Jesus and God are one, the same way that his disciples should be one among themselves and also with God. If trinity means how God and Jesus and his disciples are one like in Jesus teachings, then it’s right.

I and the Father are one.
John 10:30

I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them through your name which you have given me that they may be one, even as we are.
John 17:11

that they may all be one; even as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that you sent me.
John 17:21

Does that mean that all diciples are gods? I don’t think so. I think it means that diciples have same understanding of what is right and do as well good works and love each other like Jesus teaches. Next parts may clarify more what Jesus meant.

Jesus therefore answered them, "Most assuredly, I tell you, the Son can do nothing of himself, but what he sees the Father doing. For whatever things he does, these the Son also does likewise.
Joh. 5:19

The glory which you have given me, I have given to them; that they may be one, even as we are one; I in them, and you in me, that they may be perfected into one; that the world may know that you sent me, and loved them, even as you loved me.
John 17:22-23

I think you're on to something here.

[TomD]

Hi, Ionian_Tradition

However, one must always take into account that human fallibility is also an intrinsic part of our condition ... which possesses an ever present potential to bleed over into our hermeneutic.

And likewise the operation of the Holy Spirit through Divine Revelation, and Divine Inspiration. Remember that the Christian hermeneutic is founded on the idea of Divine Revelation. An excellent guide to Biblical interpretation is The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church (http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/pbcinter.htm), which discusses such issues as methods of approach, such as the Historical-Critical Method, rhetorical, narrative and semiotic analysis, sociology and cultural anthropology, psychological and psychoanalytical approaches as well as the conventions of Christian and Jewish exegesis.

Take care that your bias towards a single dogmatic interpretation of scripture does not blind you to the context of the text itself.

Actually, in such disputes as this, I find myself arguing from the whole text, against a distorted interpretation of specific verses, taken out of context, and pushed to extremis.

Perhaps I suggest you could take a leaf from your own book, and consider the texts you cite with reference to Our Lord's humanity, in light of the texts which Christ, by word and/or act, declares His divinity ... then again, in reference to Ragna's discussion, those texts which assert the Holy Spirit as distinct from the spirit of God.

Be also mindful that the gospel passages in question existed prior to the tradition which prevailed at the counsel of Chalcedon, which itself was assembled to debate Monophysitism...

But that is not the case ... the tradition that prevailed at Chalcedon is the same tradition that is declared in the Gospels, that Christ is God, and man. The tradition of Chalcedon is the same as that which prevailed at Nicea, and the same as the tradition which refuted the teachings of Arius ... it's a point worth noting that the first to reject Arius' errors were his own parishoners, who lived and worked in the docks of Alexandria, and who complained to the Patriarch of that city that their presbyter was teaching something that was not the confession of faith they had made.

This hardly reflects a concise christian tradition which stretched back to the point at which the gospels themselves were penned.

Actually, close examination of the documents of the day suggests just that.
The Canons of Nicea, for example, refer to ancient and time-honoured traditions within the ecclesial structure of the Church. There is evidence there to support the view that an 'orthodox' church existed, and that a constant and coherent teaching was prevalent across the whole empire. There were differences, of course, such as the Nazoreans and the Ebionites, but these were local and fringe ... even in Acts — circa 80AD — we can see the emergence of the Apostolic Tradition — including the teaching on the Trinity, and a Trinitarian formula of baptism — applied across the whole Church, and a means by which the followers of the Baptist, for example, werte brought into the Faith:
"And it came to pass, while Apollo was at Corinth, that Paul having passed through the upper coasts, came to Ephesus, and found certain disciples. And he said to them: Have you received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? But they said to him: We have not so much as heard whether there be a Holy Ghost. And he said: In what then were you baptized? Who said: In John's baptism. Then Paul said: John baptized the people with the baptism of penance, saying: That they should believe in him who was to come after him, that is to say, in Jesus. Having heard these things, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had imposed his hands on them, the Holy Ghost came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied."
Acts 19:1-6.

I'm confused...These passages support quite nicely my contention that the son and the father possessed separate wills, not one shared divine will.

These passages support the doctrine that there is the Divine Will of God, and the human will of man, and that these two wills co-exist in the Person of Jesus Christ.

You're confused because so far you've made no reference to the passages the affirm a common will between the First and Second Persons of the Holy Trinity. So you're looking at a partial text, not a complete picture.

No Thomas, I said that Christ draws no distinction between his human will and his divine will...Not that he draws no distinction between the father's will and his own. Please be sure to read carefully what I wrote before citing a contradiction which does not exist.

Sorry, my mistake. The fact remains however that if one takes Scripture as a whole, the implication is evident.

The doctrine of incarnation is the device you're seeking to use in order to address my critique of Ragna's argument regarding the Trinity.

Not quite ... rather you're referencing the wrong texts, or rather mis-applying texts to the argument.

The problem is that I fail to see how the doctrine itself explains the discrepancies I've pointed out.

The 'discrepancies' result from an incomplete understanding of what the doctrine says, and an argument based on a partial reading of he text.

Three persons who exist apart from one another in three separate forms are three separate entities by definition....

By what definition?

It is axiomatic in the Tradition that the terms 'person', 'nature' and so on are and can only be analogical, as God, by definition, trascends all categories. The error here is assuming God can be understood in anthropological terms, that's anthropomorphism.

Any discussion of the Holy Trinity, and indeed the Incarnation, must start on a firm foundation of understanding of the 'nature' of God, something that was prevalent in the Greek philosophical tradition before the advent of Christianity.

God bless,

Thomas

[TomD]

I think trinity is based on following parts of Bible, and have been misunderstood to mean that there is many gods.

The Doctrine of the Trinity states there is One God. Not that there are many gods ... I think you fail to comprehend the doctrine.

God bless,

Thomas

[Ionian_Tradition]

Greetings Thomas,

Hi, Ionian_Tradition

However, one must always take into account that human fallibility is also an intrinsic part of our condition ... which possesses an ever present potential to bleed over into our hermeneutic.

And likewise the operation of the Holy Spirit through Divine Revelation, and Divine Inspiration. Remember that the Christian hermeneutic is founded on the idea of Divine Revelation.

What are you implying exactly? That the holy spirit dictates how one must interpret the text? By what method is this accomplished? Through a still small voice? A gut feeling? A dream? Are these reliable methods for interpreting the text in question? Does this statement imply that an accurate interpretation of scripture can only be acquired through the indwelling of the Holy spirit? Would you then say that secular scholars are incapable of accurately interpreting scripture lest they share in your particular brand of belief? I find that a bit presumptuous.

An excellent guide to Biblical interpretation is The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church (http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/pbcinter.htm), which discusses such issues as methods of approach, such as the Historical-Critical Method, rhetorical, narrative and semiotic analysis, sociology and cultural anthropology, psychological and psychoanalytical approaches as well as the conventions of Christian and Jewish exegesis.

Are these the methods by which you have drawn your conclusion? Are they reflected in your argument?

Take care that your bias towards a single dogmatic interpretation of scripture does not blind you to the context of the text itself.

Actually, in such disputes as this, I find myself arguing from the whole text, against a distorted interpretation of specific verses, taken out of context, and pushed to extremis.

You have yet to offer any scriptural support of your argument which reflects a sound context regarding the text in its entirety...Rather, you're primary mode of argumentation has been an appeal to your preferred doctrine. I await the scriptural evidence you claim supports your view.

Perhaps I suggest you could take a leaf from your own book, and consider the texts you cite with reference to Our Lord's humanity, in light of the texts which Christ, by word and/or act, declares His divinity ... then again, in reference to Ragna's discussion, those texts which assert the Holy Spirit as distinct from the spirit of God.

You operate from the assumption that a divine God in human form requires two wills...You've yet to demonstrate this is true however....aside from an appeal to doctrine of course. That aside, if you have scriptural evidence which supports your position, which you seem to be implying you do, why have you not presented it? Did I not ask for this very thing in my previous post?

Be also mindful that the gospel passages in question existed prior to the tradition which prevailed at the counsel of Chalcedon, which itself was assembled to debate Monophysitism...

But that is not the case ... the tradition that prevailed at Chalcedon is the same tradition that is declared in the Gospels, that Christ is God, and man.

Show me where the gospels state CONCLUSIVELY that Christ possessed both a human will and a divine will that was one with the spirit and the father simultaneously...If you cannot do this, your point is moot.

I'm confused...These passages support quite nicely my contention that the son and the father possessed separate wills, not one shared divine will.

These passages support the doctrine that there is the Divine Will of God, and the human will of man, and that these two wills co-exist in the Person of Jesus Christ.

You're confused because so far you've made no reference to the passages the affirm a common will between the First and Second Persons of the Holy Trinity. So you're looking at a partial text, not a complete picture.

It is one thing assert...quite another to demonstrate your assertion is true. I will ask you again, if you have scriptural references which support your claim, please present them. You claim that references exist which affirm a shared will between the father, son, and spirit...Show me.

The fact remains however that if one takes Scripture as a whole, the implication is evident.

So you claim, with hands bereft of any scriptural evidence to support your position...Cough it up Tom.

Three persons who exist apart from one another in three separate forms are three separate entities by definition....

By what definition?

en·ti·ty/ˈentitē/Noun
1. A thing with distinct and independent existence.

It is axiomatic in the Tradition that the terms 'person', 'nature' and so on are and can only be analogical, as God, by definition, trascends all categories. The error here is assuming God can be understood in anthropological terms, that's anthropomorphism.

No Thomas, its logic. An entity by definition refers to that which exists independently, separate, or apart. This definition logically applies to anything which meets that criteria. We need not invoke anthropomorphism in order to apply this definition accurately. But that aside, given that Christ is a human entity, some degree of anthropomorphism is not unwarranted.

Any discussion of the Holy Trinity, and indeed the Incarnation, must start on a firm foundation of understanding of the 'nature' of God, something that was prevalent in the Greek philosophical tradition before the advent of Christianity.

And how exactly do you gather that Greek philosophical tradition reflects an accurate representation of the nature of God? You have some explaining to do before you can go around claiming such is necessary for this discussion?

[TomD]

Greetings Ionian_Tradition —

What are you implying exactly? That the holy spirit dictates how one must interpret the text?

No, I'm saying nothing more than Paul Ricoeur says: "If it is true that there is always more than one way of construing a text, it is not true that all interpretations are equal."

There are the words on the page, and there is the depth of meaning. That one can read the former does not mean one reads the latter. The human intellect can fathom the depths of Scripture to a greater or lesser degree, but as the text addresses the issue of the Divine, then the indwelling presence of the Divine will always illuminate, inspire and reveal the text in a way that transcends the purely human intellectual operation. Of course, if someone by their disposition to the text a priori precludes the activity of the Holy Spirit, then they will never 'see' what the illuminated intellect 'sees'.

By what method is this accomplished? Through a still small voice? A gut feeling? A dream? Are these reliable methods for interpreting the text in question?

Or simply that is what the text says to me. Yes, they're as good a place to start as any. I've hard many a scientist start an investigation from exactly the same place, and solve the question exactly the same way. The 'proof' is subsequent. In fact, I've heard more than one scientist point out that 'inspiration' and 'insight' follows no empirical path or method, but often sublime solutions come 'out of the blue' — so the actuality of scientific discovery actually works outside the empirical method for determining its veracity.

In this instance I would compare the texts not to scientific documents, that's not what they are. As a poet or nevelist might refer to his or her 'muse' (Robert Graves springs to mind), in Scripture, the Holy Spirit is the wellspring of inspiration.

Does this statement imply that an accurate interpretation of scripture can only be acquired through the indwelling of the Holy spirit?

Well there's more than one mode of interpretation. Classically, the Fourfold Sense of Scripture speaks of the literal, the moral, the analogical and the eschatalogical (something common to both our Hebrew and Hellenic heritage) ... so to read the 'spiritual sense' in a real, rather than philosophically abstract way, requires the presence of the Holy Spirit.

Would you then say that secular scholars are incapable of accurately interpreting scripture lest they share in your particular brand of belief? I find that a bit presumptuous.

Not incapable, but certainly limited, or incapacitated ... I find it presumptious to think that because one can read, what one reads will be understood.

It's also presumptious to assume that because one is an expert in one field, one is expert in others. Richard Dawkins made this mistake. He wrote a very big book 'The God Delusion' which was undone in a very small essay — Dawkins assumes that God must be 'complex' — a false premise. As the author of the essay deomonstrated, Dawkins is a better botanist than he is a philosopher.

It's like someone offering a commentary on a text on Buddhist meditation, without every actually having tried it. Their insights can and will only ever be superficial; there's no dynamic engagement with the text. So a sociopolitical reading, yes. Spiritual reading, no.

Are these the methods by which you have drawn your conclusion? Are they reflected in your argument?

Nope. We're still in the shallows, really ... I'm not talking about my conclusions, I began by pointing out the conclusions drawn by others are based on a faulty understanding of the doctrine.

Remember that secular scholarship has been telling Christians for quite some time that this or that text is a fiction, that this or that cannot be factually true, without even getting into interpretation ... then archaeology comes along and says, 'oops, we were wrong' — the whole of Luke's Gospel was challenged because he gave fictional titles to known personages, places he mentioned were nowhere near where he said they were. Then they found coins with the titles Luke mentions, and fragments proving that places were where he said they were. People discount Luke's nativity account of the census and Herod's massacre of the innocents on the basis that there is no Roman record of either, but now there's evidence to suggest there was indeed a census ...

... so you will excuse us if we do not set too much store by secular interpretations, we find too much assumption and presupposition to treat their opinions as dependable.

However, there's a raft of open-minded scholarship at the very highest level, world-respected authorities, that informs my argument, Bernard Lonergan, Paul Ricoeur, Maurice Murleau-Ponty (and the philosophy of Phenomenology generally), then there's theologians who discuss the nature of texts and exegesis ... and St Augustine is one whom is still teaching us things today.

You have yet to offer any scriptural support of your argument which reflects a sound context regarding the text in its entirety...

That's a whole other area of debate, in the same way you've offered no support to your own argument of interpretation.

Rather, you're primary mode of argumentation has been an appeal to your preferred doctrine.

Again, as you do yours.

You operate from the assumption that a divine God in human form requires two wills...

No I don't, that's your assumption. Two wills are not 'required', but operation of the two wills points to something that is absolutely fundamental to understanding Christianity.

Show me where the gospels state CONCLUSIVELY that Christ possessed both a human will and a divine will that was one with the spirit and the father simultaneously...If you cannot do this, your point is moot.

Well two errors:
To prove CONCLUSIVELY a divine will would require I first prove CONCLUSIVELY a God as Christianity understands the term. As God cannot be proved (God not being subjecvt to any empirical determination) the premise of your argument is flawed.

The doctrine of the two wills of Christ is founded on the text, and has been argued from the very beginning, it's there in St Paul ... so it's not incombent upon me to argue the doctrine, the doctrine is out there. You might not accept it, you can offer alternative interpretations, but you cannot disprove the doctrine.

It is one thing assert...quite another to demonstrate your assertion is true. I will ask you again, if you have scriptural references which support your claim, please present them. You claim that references exist which affirm a shared will between the father, son, and spirit...Show me.

Show you? You mean you don't know? You're arguing against something you don't know?

I would suggest that's presumptious, and lazy. When I wrote my theology essays, I had to demonstrate an knowledge of both sides of the argument. To rubbish a doctrine I didn't understand would get me an instant fail.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is available online, and can be searched. I suggest you start there.

No Thomas, its logic.

There is you, me and someone else — there are three entitles, but one and the same humanity common to us all — one humanity, not three humanities. One essence, three persons ... and all three are 100% human, but no one person, whilst being 100 human, possesses the totality of human possibility.

What distinguishes the persons is, in the language of philosophy, the accidents — size, colour, shape, gender, strength, intelligence ...

But the underlying flaw in your logic is assuming God is a thing like other things ... logically, God is not such a thing, but is singularly and utterly unique ... so logical would argue that the rules that apply to things do not necessarily apply to God, that's why we predicate attributes of God analogically or metaphorically rather than actually.

And how exactly do you gather that Greek philosophical tradition reflects an accurate representation of the nature of God? You have some explaining to do before you can go around claiming such is necessary for this discussion?

I don't make that claim for a start. The God of the philosophers, as Pascal declared, not the God of the Abrahamic Tradition. The God of the Brahmins follows a different philosophical system, although there are many (logical) commonalities.

What I am saying is that the theologians of their day believed that God, in abstract terms, could be argued philosophically — and as the prevalent philsophical tradition of the time and place was the Hellenic tradition, that is the language they harnessed and utilised to make their arguments. The Fathers were, as is a matter of record, Platonists. Some sought to Platonise Christianity, and got themselves into a bit of a fix (Arius, for example), others Christianised Plato, and the result is luminous ... a scientist once said that a good theory possesses simplicity, beauty (E=MC2) and tends to answer more questions than were originally asked of it, whereas a bad theory tends to be cumbersome, clunky and poses more questions than solutions ... St Maximus' reworking of the Platonic ternary 'stasis-kinesis-genesis' (rest-movement-becoming) was reworked in light of the data of Scripture to read 'becoming-movement-rest' ... so it begins with Genesis ... and a whole raft of Platonic issues was resolved in a stroke.

But now we're a long way from Trinity and logic ...

God bless,

Thomas

[ThatGirlAgain]

No, I'm not criticizing it today. I'm going to try to defend the Holy Trinity.

For the intellectual exercise I am also going to defend the Trinity but in an entirely different way than Ragna.

The three persons of a single God can be distinguished from each other by their time senses.

Augustine tells us that time was created along with the world. The creator of the world must therefore be timeless. This does not mean that this creator endures forever along an infinite timeline. It means that to the creator there is no passage of time. The entire world from beginning to end and whatever else there may be is present in a single moment. (This is conceptually similar to Einstein’s view of the universe as a 4-dimensional continuum.) This transcendent timeless creator is God the Father.

But from the point of view of the created world, which includes time, God persists forever. We cannot directly perceive the transcendent creator who exists outside of time. Yet ultimately the existence of the world depends continuously on God, who is not merely the creator but the sustainer of the world, being after all the ground of existence as the theologians tell us. God is therefore not merely transcendent but immanent as well. This continuing temporal presence of God in the world is the Holy Spirit.

But the purpose of the universe (in good old Scholastic Philosophy anyway) is the salvation of man. (This is why they got so upset at Copernicanism, which suggested that we were NOT the focus of existence.) Salvation required a specific one-time intervention at a definite moment in history. And so Jesus lived and died and provided the means of salvation for a failed humanity. This Jesus lived on earth for a definite span and experienced the world exactly as any human might.

God the Father sees the world as a whole from a transcendent viewpoint, its entire history being a timeless moment. God the Holy Spirit sees the world immanently, from the inside (especially inside people), which necessarily includes the progression of time God the Son saw the world for a time as a human would, in the context of a particular and limited time and place. These three distinct time senses provide three different experiences of the world and can reasonably said to constitute three persons.

So do I win anything?

[Shermana]

An example of Trinitarian Logic:

The following line is used as a "Proof text" of Jesus claiming to be God, on the Theology Board (and hardly the first time I've seen it). They like to say that Jesus saying "I am" for any sentence no matter the Grammatical reason means "I am I am" as if "I am" is the equivalent and same context as the "Eyheh Asher Eyheh".

"If you don't believe that I am (he), you will die in your sins". My issue is that the "he" the translators added is necessary for English' sake meaning in reference to the Messiah, the Trinitarian says the Jesus saying "If you don't believe that I am" means "If you don't believe I am (God)."

However, if the word "I am" is being used for the name of God, wouldn't Jesus be saying

"If you don't believe God"?

Wouldn't he have to say "If you don't believe I am I am"?

Many translations apparently even capitalize the "I am" in this grammatical sense, is it reasonable to conclude that this may show an example of supposed Greek scholars abusing their power to stress Theological preferences to their target market?

[Ionian_Tradition]

Always good to hear from you Thomas, Greetings again.

Greetings Ionian_Tradition —

What are you implying exactly? That the holy spirit dictates how one must interpret the text?

No, I'm saying nothing more than Paul Ricoeur says: "If it is true that there is always more than one way of construing a text, it is not true that all interpretations are equal."

There are the words on the page, and there is the depth of meaning. That one can read the former does not mean one reads the latter. The human intellect can fathom the depths of Scripture to a greater or lesser degree, but as the text addresses the issue of the Divine, then the indwelling presence of the Divine will always illuminate, inspire and reveal the text in a way that transcends the purely human intellectual operation. Of course, if someone by their disposition to the text a priori precludes the activity of the Holy Spirit, then they will never 'see' what the illuminated intellect 'sees'.

You seem to assume that a belief in the Holy spirit will by default lead one to accept an interpretation of the text in favor of your doctrine. This is not evident, nor has it been demonstrated.

By what method is this accomplished? Through a still small voice? A gut feeling? A dream? Are these reliable methods for interpreting the text in question?

Or simply that is what the text says to me. Yes, they're as good a place to start as any. I've hard many a scientist start an investigation from exactly the same place, and solve the question exactly the same way. The 'proof' is subsequent. In fact, I've heard more than one scientist point out that 'inspiration' and 'insight' follows no empirical path or method, but often sublime solutions come 'out of the blue' — so the actuality of scientific discovery actually works outside the empirical method for determining its veracity.

Inspiration might provide a sufficient starting point from which to begin conducting scientific inquiry, however, it is NOT a form of verification. We didn't use a gut feeling as a valid form of verification for determining the veracity of the theory of general relativity. Inquiry may begin with inspiration, but ACTUAL discovery is made through empirical verification, thus your statement that "the actuality of scientific discovery actually works outside the empirical method for determining its veracity" is patently false.

In this instance I would compare the texts not to scientific documents, that's not what they are. As a poet or nevelist might refer to his or her 'muse' (Robert Graves springs to mind), in Scripture, the Holy Spirit is the wellspring of inspiration.

Inspiration perhaps...not verification. I'm not interested in what inspires you, I'm interested in how we might determine if the doctrine you posit accurately reflects the contextual intentions of the author without an appeal to a nice feeling.

Does this statement imply that an accurate interpretation of scripture can only be acquired through the indwelling of the Holy spirit?

Well there's more than one mode of interpretation. Classically, the Fourfold Sense of Scripture speaks of the literal, the moral, the analogical and the eschatalogical (something common to both our Hebrew and Hellenic heritage) ... so to read the 'spiritual sense' in a real, rather than philosophically abstract way, requires the presence of the Holy Spirit.

Explain to me exactly how "reading in the spirit" is performed by a physical being bound to its own physical faculty. This seems an appeal to a strange metaphysic you've not substantiated aside from asserting such can be done.. Thus I'm inclined to dismiss it if you cannot demonstrate its viability through at least a valid form of argumentation, for the reason that it adds nothing constructive or substantive to this discussion.

Would you then say that secular scholars are incapable of accurately interpreting scripture lest they share in your particular brand of belief? I find that a bit presumptuous.

Not incapable, but certainly limited, or incapacitated ... I find it presumptious to think that because one can read, what one reads will be understood.

I never presumed such a thing...What exactly have I said which implies this?

It's also presumptious to assume that because one is an expert in one field, one is expert in others. Richard Dawkins made this mistake. He wrote a very big book 'The God Delusion' which was undone in a very small essay — Dawkins assumes that God must be 'complex' — a false premise. As the author of the essay deomonstrated, Dawkins is a better botanist than he is a philosopher.

Though I love a good red herring, this is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand and is beginning to smack of "straw man" in that secular scholars (or secular theologians if you like) WOULD be considered experts in the field of textual/scriptural analysis....I expect better of you Thomas.

It's like someone offering a commentary on a text on Buddhist meditation, without every actually having tried it. Their insights can and will only ever be superficial; there's no dynamic engagement with the text. So a sociopolitical reading, yes. Spiritual reading, no.

Interesting, should I also consider your commentary on God "superficial" because you've never actually seen him? Or should I consider the theological interpretations regarding events in scripture issued by Catholic theologians "superficial" because they were not there to experience the recorded events themselves? Perhaps my commentary on the dangers of walking out in front of a moving vehicle is "superficial" for the fact that I've never actually tried it...Come now Thomas...be reasonable.

Are these the methods by which you have drawn your conclusion? Are they reflected in your argument?

Nope. We're still in the shallows, really ... I'm not talking about my conclusions, I began by pointing out the conclusions drawn by others are based on a faulty understanding of the doctrine.

Remember that secular scholarship has been telling Christians for quite some time that this or that text is a fiction, that this or that cannot be factually true, without even getting into interpretation ... then archaeology comes along and says, 'oops, we were wrong' — the whole of Luke's Gospel was challenged because he gave fictional titles to known personages, places he mentioned were nowhere near where he said they were. Then they found coins with the titles Luke mentions, and fragments proving that places were where he said they were. People discount Luke's nativity account of the census and Herod's massacre of the innocents on the basis that there is no Roman record of either, but now there's evidence to suggest there was indeed a census ...

The problem is, there is no evidence for a census being issued by Caesar Augustus during that time period. And the date which it was supposedly issued contradicts the history of the time by setting Quirinius as Governor of Syria prior to Herod's death in 1 B.C...( Historical record shows that Quirinius was not Governor until after Herod's death in 6AD)...The accounts of infant slaughter, to date, have no historical basis what so ever. But all of this is really irrelevant to our discussion.

... so you will excuse us if we do not set too much store by secular interpretations, we find too much assumption and presupposition to treat their opinions as dependable.

Yet you prefer the extremely biased interpretation of scripture issued by individuals who approach the text with a set of pre-determined conclusions that cater to your own bias?...Is this where you place your trust? In believers who consider the bible to be infallible while conducting their analysis? Do you consider these individuals bereft of assumption and presupposition?.. I'm sorry but perhaps you'll excuse ME if I do not place much store in this fundamentally flawed form of inquiry.

However, there's a raft of open-minded scholarship at the very highest level, world-respected authorities, that informs my argument, Bernard Lonergan, Paul Ricoeur, Maurice Murleau-Ponty (and the philosophy of Phenomenology generally), then there's theologians who discuss the nature of texts and exegesis ... and St Augustine is one whom is still teaching us things today.

Believers all I see. Surely there are a few well respected authorities who might differ from your conclusion...Its too bad that your bias prevents you from considering their position as well...

You have yet to offer any scriptural support of your argument which reflects a sound context regarding the text in its entirety...

That's a whole other area of debate, in the same way you've offered no support to your own argument of interpretation.

I cited a few different scriptural passages. Besides, was it not you who made the following claims?

Actually, in such disputes as this, I find myself arguing from the whole text, against a distorted interpretation of specific verses, taken out of context, and pushed to extremis.

The fact remains however that if one takes Scripture as a whole, the implication is evident.

You're confused because so far you've made no reference to the passages the affirm a common will between the First and Second Persons of the Holy Trinity. So you're looking at a partial text, not a complete picture.

I assume you are aware of the scriptural passages which reflect this "complete picture" you speak of....Where are they Tom?

You operate from the assumption that a divine God in human form requires two wills...

No I don't, that's your assumption. Two wills are not 'required', but operation of the two wills points to something that is absolutely fundamental to understanding Christianity.

We haven't determined that these two wills even exist yet Tom....Lets not jump the gun. We can remark on what follows from the existence of two wills once we've determined this.

Show me where the gospels state CONCLUSIVELY that Christ possessed both a human will and a divine will that was one with the spirit and the father simultaneously...If you cannot do this, your point is moot.

Well two errors:
To prove CONCLUSIVELY a divine will would require I first prove CONCLUSIVELY a God as Christianity understands the term. As God cannot be proved (God not being subjecvt to any empirical determination) the premise of your argument is flawed.

Wrong Tom, I asked you to prove that SCRIPTURE states conclusively that Christ possessed these two wills. This request is well within the confines of empirical verification. Whether or not scripture is accurate in its statement that God exists is another matter entirely. Lets stay on topic.

The doctrine of the two wills of Christ is founded on the text, and has been argued from the very beginning, it's there in St Paul ... so it's not incombent upon me to argue the doctrine, the doctrine is out there. You might not accept it, you can offer alternative interpretations, but you cannot disprove the doctrine.

I am not called upon to prove a negative Tom. You positively assert the doctrine is true...The burden is now on you to demonstrate it. Clearly I am not debating St. Paul...I'm debating you Tom. Defend yourself.

It is one thing assert...quite another to demonstrate your assertion is true. I will ask you again, if you have scriptural references which support your claim, please present them. You claim that references exist which affirm a shared will between the father, son, and spirit...Show me.

Show you? You mean you don't know? You're arguing against something you don't know?

Tom...really? I know of no scriptural passages which conclusively support your position. You assert they exist, hence the reason I have asked you to present your evidence. What concerning this fact do you find problematic exactly?

I would suggest that's presumptious, and lazy. When I wrote my theology essays, I had to demonstrate an knowledge of both sides of the argument. To rubbish a doctrine I didn't understand would get me an instant fail.

Well then, I am fortunate this debate is not a theological exam. However, debate etiquette demands that when one issues a positive claim, the onus of proof remain on the individual issuing the claim to demonstrate their claim is valid. You claim that scriptural evidence exists to conclusively demonstrate the veracity of the doctrine you posit. Show it or retract your assertion. To issue a claim and yet refuse to back it up with evidence is extremely "lazy" Tom....and a sign of bad form.

No Thomas, its logic.

There is you, me and someone else — there are three entitles, but one and the same humanity common to us all — one humanity, not three humanities. One essence, three persons ... and all three are 100% human, but no one person, whilst being 100 human, possesses the totality of human possibility.

The fact remains that we are still referring to three separate and distinct HUMAN BEINGS Tom. Three entities. To state that all three are ONE human being would be an error in logic.

What distinguishes the persons is, in the language of philosophy, the accidents — size, colour, shape, gender, strength, intelligence ...

But the underlying flaw in your logic is assuming God is a thing like other things ... logically, God is not such a thing, but is singularly and utterly unique ... so logical would argue that the rules that apply to things do not necessarily apply to God, that's why we predicate attributes of God analogically or metaphorically rather than actually.

The rules of logic are universal Tom, regardless of what notion we apply the logic to. Can your God create a square circle? If he cannot then you'll have demonstrated that God's attributes can be defined through logic. Or do you exclude God from the confines of logic? Do you worship a illogical God?

And how exactly do you gather that Greek philosophical tradition reflects an accurate representation of the nature of God? You have some explaining to do before you can go around claiming such is necessary for this discussion?

I don't make that claim for a start. The God of the philosophers, as Pascal declared, not the God of the Abrahamic Tradition. The God of the Brahmins follows a different philosophical system, although there are many (logical) commonalities.

What I am saying is that the theologians of their day believed that God, in abstract terms, could be argued philosophically — and as the prevalent philsophical tradition of the time and place was the Hellenic tradition, that is the language they harnessed and utilised to make their arguments. The Fathers were, as is a matter of record, Platonists. Some sought to Platonise Christianity, and got themselves into a bit of a fix (Arius, for example), others Christianised Plato, and the result is luminous ... a scientist once said that a good theory possesses simplicity, beauty (E=MC2) and tends to answer more questions than were originally asked of it, whereas a bad theory tends to be cumbersome, clunky and poses more questions than solutions ... St Maximus' reworking of the Platonic ternary 'stasis-kinesis-genesis' (rest-movement-becoming) was reworked in light of the data of Scripture to read 'becoming-movement-rest' ... so it begins with Genesis ... and a whole raft of Platonic issues was resolved in a stroke.

But now we're a long way from Trinity and logic ...

Indeed.

[bernee51]

No, I'm not criticizing it today. I'm going to try to defend the Holy Trinity.

For the intellectual exercise I am also going to defend the Trinity but in an entirely different way than Ragna.

The three persons of a single God can be distinguished from each other by their time senses.

Augustine tells us that time was created along with the world. The creator of the world must therefore be timeless. This does not mean that this creator endures forever along an infinite timeline. It means that to the creator there is no passage of time. The entire world from beginning to end and whatever else there may be is present in a single moment. (This is conceptually similar to Einstein’s view of the universe as a 4-dimensional continuum.) This transcendent timeless creator is God the Father.

But from the point of view of the created world, which includes time, God persists forever. We cannot directly perceive the transcendent creator who exists outside of time. Yet ultimately the existence of the world depends continuously on God, who is not merely the creator but the sustainer of the world, being after all the ground of existence as the theologians tell us. God is therefore not merely transcendent but immanent as well. This continuing temporal presence of God in the world is the Holy Spirit.

But the purpose of the universe (in good old Scholastic Philosophy anyway) is the salvation of man. (This is why they got so upset at Copernicanism, which suggested that we were NOT the focus of existence.) Salvation required a specific one-time intervention at a definite moment in history. And so Jesus lived and died and provided the means of salvation for a failed humanity. This Jesus lived on earth for a definite span and experienced the world exactly as any human might.

God the Father sees the world as a whole from a transcendent viewpoint, its entire history being a timeless moment. God the Holy Spirit sees the world immanently, from the inside (especially inside people), which necessarily includes the progression of time God the Son saw the world for a time as a human would, in the context of a particular and limited time and place. These three distinct time senses provide three different experiences of the world and can reasonably said to constitute three persons.

So do I win anything?

You have clearly explained the origins of christian trinity doctrine and its basis in earlier Vedantic thought.

The trinity makes up the 'nature of being'...the knower (god the father), the known (god the son) and the act of knowing (god the holy spirit).