About the Trinity

[inJESUS]

That’s true, but the doctrine also states that each is really distinct. And therein lies the problem.

Either each person is more than God, ie, a combination of something not-God and God so that each person is distinct from every other, or a “person” is no different from the God substance except that there is a word used to describe him. In that case, the only thing triune about God is the three names used to describe him.

Any solution to the contradiction will either conflate the persons, or divide the nature. This is because as is, it’s a contradictory teaching.

if the scriptures say the Father has a Word and a Spirit, does the Father=Word=Spirit as “persons” or “entities” ? no.

Does the Father=Word=Spirit in essence? yes because the Father and His Word and His Spirit are eternal.

Where is the contradiction?

 

[JimG]

That’s true, but the doctrine also states that each is really distinct. And therein lies the problem.

The doctrine states that each Person is really distinct from the other Persons–in their personhood. But it affirms that each person possesses the same one divine nature. The persons are not distinct in Being. They are one in Being.

Person and nature are not distinct entities–even in human beings. Every object has a nature (a what) but not every object is a person (a who).

So I can say of a rock, What is it? but not Who is it?

But of a human being I can ask What is it? (A human being.) and also Who is it? (JimG)

But my personhood, while describing Who I am, is not a distinct entity from my nature. I am still one being, not two.

We are accustomed to seeing in humanity one person associated with one nature. In God, three persons are associated with one nature.

 

[tequilamac]

That’s true, but the doctrine also states that each is really distinct. And therein lies the problem.

Either each person is more than God, ie, a combination of something not-God and God so that each person is distinct from every other, or a “person” is no different from the God substance except that there is a word used to describe him. In that case, the only thing triune about God is the three names used to describe him.

Any solution to the contradiction will either conflate the persons, or divide the nature. This is because as is, it’s a contradictory teaching.

No, Pro, it is not a contradiction. It is a paradox. A paradox cannot be and never is a contradiction. But the idea that three distinct persons exist in one equally is a paradox.

 

[pro_universal]

No, Pro, it is not a contradiction. It is a paradox. A paradox cannot be and never is a contradiction. But the idea that three distinct persons exist in one equally is a paradox.

okay, explain to me how a “paradox” is different from a “contradiction.”

But my personhood, while describing Who I am, is not a distinct entity from my nature. I am still one being, not two.

JimG,

The problem is that in this case, “personhood” becomes an artificial distinction. You’re saying that there’s actually no substance that distinguishes the Father from the Holy Spirit, in which case, they are in fact identical (you conflated the persons-the only difference between them is a word that you use to describe the same substance.)

If they are really distinct, then there has to be something that personhood adds to the substance of either to distinguish them. In which case, “the Father is God-plus” and “The Holy Spirit is God-plus.”

Relying on the vagaries of the word person will inevitably confront you with the choice outlined above: to transform personhood into a sham distinction, or to conflate each person into one being, separated only by word-games and not by any real distinctive property.

 

[inJESUS]

Pro, would you answer my question for you please in post 41?

regarding paradox definition : A seemingly contradictory statement that may nonetheless be true.

 

[tequilamac]

okay, explain to me how a “paradox” is different from a “contradiction.”

QUOTE]

par·a·dox (pr-dks)
n.
1.A seemingly contradictory statement that may nonetheless be true: the paradox that standing is more tiring than walking.
2.One exhibiting inexplicable or contradictory aspects: “The silence of midnight, to speak truly, though apparently a paradox, rung in my ears” (Mary Shelley).
3.An assertion that is essentially self-contradictory, though based on a valid deduction from acceptable premises.
4.A statement contrary to received opinion.

contradiction

n
1: opposition between two conflicting forces or ideas

2: (logic) a statement that is necessarily false; “the statement `he is brave and he is not brave’ is a contradiction”

The difference between a contradiction and a paradox is truth. A contradiction must be false.
A paradox is true\

‘I always lie’ is a paradox because if it is true it must be false
“You are right and you are wrong” is a contradiction.

At this time, even though Pro you have repeatedly stated the Trinity is a contradiction, you have not proven that the Trinity must be false. Many people before you have tried and failed. Because the trinity is a paradox not a contradiction.

 

[tequilamac]

okay, explain to me how a “paradox” is different from a “contradiction.”

JimG,

The problem is that in this case, “personhood” becomes an artificial distinction. You’re saying that there’s actually no substance that distinguishes the Father from the Holy Spirit, in which case, they are in fact identical (you conflated the persons-the only difference between them is a word that you use to describe the same substance.)

If they are really distinct, then there has to be something that personhood adds to the substance of either to distinguish them. In which case, “the Father is God-plus” and “The Holy Spirit is God-plus.”

Relying on the vagaries of the word person will inevitably confront you with the choice outlined above: to transform personhood into a sham distinction, or to conflate each person into one being, separated only by word-games and not by any real distinctive property.

par·a·dox (pr-dks)
n.
1.A seemingly contradictory statement that may nonetheless be true: the paradox that standing is more tiring than walking.
2.One exhibiting inexplicable or contradictory aspects.
3.An assertion that is essentially self-contradictory, though based on a valid deduction from acceptable premises.
4.A statement contrary to received opinion.

contradiction

n
1: opposition between two conflicting forces or ideas

2: (logic) a statement that is necessarily false; “the statement `he is brave and he is not brave’ is a contradiction”

The difference between a contradiction and a paradox is truth.
A contradiction must be false.
A paradox may be true or false.

“The silence of midnight, to speak truly, though apparently a paradox, rung in my ears” (Mary Shelley).

‘I always lie’ is a paradox because if it is true it must be false.

“You are right and you are wrong” is a contradiction.

“The coat is white and the coat is black” is a contradiction.

“It is daytime and it is nightime” is a contradiction.

“The silence is deafening” is a paradox.

At this time, even though Pro you have repeatedly stated the Trinity is a contradiction, you have not proven that the Trinity must be false. Many people before you have tried and failed. Because the trinity is a paradox not a contradiction.

:The woman’s meekness destroyed the rage of the beast" is a paradox.

 

[Scottgun]

What does this have to do with the discussion?

The Muslim saw is to pretend that the Trinity is logically contradictory. If they would simply say that they don’t believe it, fine. But it is comedic to watch their proofs of it being a contradiction.

 

[JimG]

The problem is that in this case, “personhood” becomes an artificial distinction. You’re saying that there’s actually no substance that distinguishes the Father from the Holy Spirit, in which case, they are in fact identical (you conflated the persons-the only difference between them is a word that you use to describe the same substance.)

In fact, the doctrine of the Trinity is that the three Persons are consubstantial—of one substance.

So I use the words to describe three persons but one substance.

Personhood is an expression of the subjectivity—the “who-ness” of a nature. It is not a separate substance, any more than that within me which is able to say “I” is a separate substance.

In this regard it is good to keep in mind that God is spirit: That is, he does not have a ‘structure.’ He does not have parts. So we cannot discuss the “composition” of God, as if he were a material Being. He is a spiritual being without parts. There is no part of him which is not the whole of him. This is his nature.

So in speaking of the Trinity we cannot mean three parts of God, because he is one spiritual substance. He is a single Being—one in nature—which is perfectly expressed in three persons.

 

[tequilamac]

Paradox continued for Pro

Here is an excellent article on the nature of the paradoxical in God;

Blessed are the poor in spirit
by Fr Henry Charles

The Beatitudes have always had a puzzling place in Christian consciousness. They summon us, on the one hand, to a great height of spiritual and ethical achievement, a “righteousness”, in Jesus’ words, beyond that of the scribes and Pharisees.

At the same time, they appear to canonise dispositions that hardly seem to warrant being called “blessed”: poverty of spirit, meekness, mourning, suffering, persecution. There’s also the matter of expression.

Some translations call the persons having such dispositions “happy” instead of “blessed”, which does nothing to minimise the difficulty.

The language of the Beatitudes, in fact, is the language of paradox. **In all religious traditions, paradox is the natural language of spiritual communication and spiritual wisdom, and Biblical religion is no exception. **

catholicnews-tt.net/v2005/series/lent130205.htm

“One God in Three Persons” is a paradox.

 

[Northwind]

Something to this effect I think has been posted already so, here is an addendum to the analogy of water and the trinity;

There are a few direct parallels between water and the Godhead:
As a simple definition of water we could say that; there is one thing we call water, which is expressed or manifested in three ways. Water, in each form, shares the same nature and essence.

So, the first direct parallel is that water is made up of H2O, whether it is expressed as liquid, solid or vapor. Likewise, God is expressed three ways. But no matter which way, there is the same essence and nature and attributes. This parallel has to do with nature; water has the same nature expressed three ways as does God.

Another direct parallel is the fact that water is expressed three ways; liquid, solid and vapor. God is manifested three ways; Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Yet another parallel is that water, in whatever form it’s in, is separate and distinct from each other. Liquid H2O is different from solid H2O which is different from gaseous H2O, all the while having the same nature and essence. Each person in the Godhead is separate and distinct from each other. The Father isn’t the Son, who isn’t the Holy Spirit or any combination of the above. Each is distinct personalities, while sharing the same attributes, nature and essence.

Sorry for the formatting, it isn’t coming across from my word doc the way it’s supposed to…hope this helps.

 

[pro_universal]

Paradox continued for Pro

Here is an excellent article on the nature of the paradoxical in God;

Blessed are the poor in spirit
by Fr Henry Charles

The Beatitudes have always had a puzzling place in Christian consciousness. They summon us, on the one hand, to a great height of spiritual and ethical achievement, a “righteousness”, in Jesus’ words, beyond that of the scribes and Pharisees.

At the same time, they appear to canonise dispositions that hardly seem to warrant being called “blessed”: poverty of spirit, meekness, mourning, suffering, persecution. There’s also the matter of expression.

Some translations call the persons having such dispositions “happy” instead of “blessed”, which does nothing to minimise the difficulty.

The language of the Beatitudes, in fact, is the language of paradox. **In all religious traditions, paradox is the natural language of spiritual communication and spiritual wisdom, and Biblical religion is no exception. **

catholicnews-tt.net/v2005/series/lent130205.htm

“One God in Three Persons” is a paradox.

Actually, that’s a very good explanation. I’ll agree that it’s a paradox…but that also means you agree that it’s an apparent contradiction, right?

Maybe it is true out there in the world. That’s always possible. But the fact remains that in its written and spoken forms, the teaching is contradictory.

 

[tequilamac]

Actually, that’s a very good explanation. I’ll agree that it’s a paradox…but that also means you agree that it’s an apparent contradiction, right?

Maybe it is true out there in the world. That’s always possible. But the fact remains that in its written and spoken forms, the teaching is contradictory.

No again. Not yet. You are not all the way thre. A paradox is appears to be a contradiction and yet is not a contradiction. A contradiction is always and must be a contradiction. Therefore you cannot say that something is a contradiction but a paradox. They cannot be both at the same time.
The teaching is paradoxical.
If you accept that, it is false to then say the teaching is contradictory.

 

[tequilamac]

Actually, that’s a very good explanation. I’ll agree that it’s a paradox…but that also means you agree that it’s an apparent contradiction, right?

Maybe it is true out there in the world. That’s always possible. But the fact remains that in its written and spoken forms, the teaching is contradictory.

No. Something cannot be a paradox and a contradiction at the same time. A contradiction is nothing but a contradiction. A paradox is something that appears to be a contradiciton but is not. Therefore to say that the teachings are paradoxical but contradictions is completely false on both counts. Try again.

 

[pro_universal]

No. Something cannot be a paradox and a contradiction at the same time. A contradiction is nothing but a contradiction. A paradox is something that appears to be a contradiciton but is not. Therefore to say that the teachings are paradoxical but contradictions is completely false on both counts. Try again.

Well, that’s exaclty what I said above. It appears to be contradictory.

That means, if you look at a written version of the trinity, and try to understand its logic, you get a contradiction. Right?

But the difference is, you think that maybe that contradiction doesn’t matter, because it’s true anyway…even though you can’t see any apparent way that it’s not a contradiction.

That’s perfectly compatible with what I’ve said all along about the trinity.

 

[tequilamac]

Well, that’s exaclty what I said above. It appears to be contradictory.

That means, if you look at a written version of the trinity, and try to understand its logic, you get a contradiction. Right?

But the difference is, you think that maybe that contradiction doesn’t matter, because it’s true anyway…even though you can’t see any apparent way that it’s not a contradiction.

That’s perfectly compatible with what I’ve said all along about the trinity.

No. Appearing to be contradictory and actually being contradictory are not the same thing. For you to try and force the rest of us to agree that they are is completely nonsensical and illogical. A contradiction must be and always is a contradition. A contradiction is not something that appears to be contradictory but actually is contradictory. Therefore it cannot be a paradox.
Try to understand what a paradox actually is.

The trinity is recognised by just about every theological group as being paradoxical in nature, not contradictory. Judaism, Islamic scholars, fundamentalists recognise the paradox. For it is impossible to discuss theology without paradox. Anything spiritual cannot be discussed without paradox.
To remain in the category of contradiction and not paradox, is a philosophical argument only and that is where your interpretation rightly belongs. With aristotle etc. but in theology format it must be addressed as it is: a paradox.

 

[pro_universal]

No. Appearing to be contradictory and actually being contradictory are not the same thing.

Please explain the difference, judging solely based on the writing that expresses the idea, between an “apparent contradiction” and a “real contradiction.” What properties does the writing of an apparent contradiction have that a real one does not have?

For you to try and force the rest of us to agree that they are is completely nonsensical and illogical. A contradiction must be and always is a contradition. A contradiction is not something that appears to be contradictory but actually is contradictory. Therefore it cannot be a paradox.
Try to understand what a paradox actually is.

You seem to be missing my point. My point is that even if this “paradox” is really true, if you read the language, it looks contradictory. So if you ask someone “without reference to the world out there, is this passage of text logical?”, if the text is a paradox, the person would answer: “No.”

 

[inJESUS]

Pro, when it suits you, you use logic and when it doesn’t, your arguments become anything but logical.

There is a difference between the verb “is” and the verb"appear". Paradox is that which appears to be a contradiction at first hearing, but in reality, it is not.

A paradox cannot be a contradiction.

 

[inJESUS]

You seem to be missing my point. My point is that even if this “paradox” is really true, if you read the language, it looks contradictory. So if you ask someone “without reference to the world out there, is this passage of text logical?”, if the text is a paradox, the person would answer: “No.”

oh so what matters to you is appearance rather than truth…so if the Trinity seems like a contradiction but in fact it is not, it doesn’t matter to you…what matters is that you can use the word “contradiction”… You just want to cling to your idea because you can “use” the word “contradiction” . I see…speaks a lot

When you increase your knowledge, you see how little you know. Oops i just used a paradox but since it “looks” a contradiction, then Pro can reject it’s truth because what matters is that it is a contradiction in appearance :clapping:

 

[pro_universal]

oh so what matters to you is appearance rather than truth…so if the Trinity seems like a contradiction but in fact it is not, it doesn’t matter to you…what matters is that you can use the word “contradiction”… You just want to cling to your idea because you can “use” the word “contradiction” . I see…speaks a lot

Considering that a contradiction is precisely an appearance, yes, that’s what matters. Analyzing a piece of paper doesn’t tell you anything about the universe, it just tells you what the words on the paper say…and that’s what logic is. It makes sense of what has already been said; it does not verify what is said, and it doesn’t add to what is said.

When you increase your knowledge, you see how little you know. Oops i just used a paradox but since it “looks” a contradiction, then Pro can reject it’s truth because what matters is that it is a contradiction in appearance :clapping:

Who has rejected the truth of the thing? My reasons for rejecting its truth relate to it being “apparently contradictory”, but are not required by acknowledging the contradiction.

My point is this: would God want the truth that leads to salvation to be simple, and available to human reasoning, or not? If God wants to lead all people to salvation, why would he choose a theology to reveal that is even “apparently” contradictory?

The fact that the trinity is contradictory makes it tough to sell to people who don’t already believe it, and even tougher to explain even to people who do believe it. It’s confusing, at a minimum, and has been an endless source of division within even the Christian community. I don’t believe God is the author of confusion…do you?