The Trinity Doctrine: Help me out, Christians

[possibletarian]

If you're going to believe in God, it's perfectly logical that there will be things that are beyond our comprehension. God is supposed to be a much more advanced entity than us, and it makes sense that there would be much associated with Him and how He works than we can fully wrap our heads around.

I rather think that is the point, if it is beyond comprehension then why have it as a doctrine at all ?

Over the years I've seen people try and explain it, all unsatisfactory, I'm convinced it's simply (at least as presented to us) a made up doctrine to attempt to explain some of the things Jesus supposedly said and portrayed himself to be.

---

Get it right camus, it was a fucking dragon, lol.

And everyone knows dragons are real. I love how theists get all dramatic that you misrepresents one farcical talking creature with another, as though that would make it somehow more acceptable and rational.

[Huggy Bear]

Get it right camus, it was a fucking dragon, lol.

And everyone knows dragons are real. I love how theists get all dramatic that you misrepresents one farcical talking creature with another, as though that would make it somehow more acceptable and rational.

Except no one said anything about any farcical talking creature, what was said was the serpent was the closest thing to human out of all the beasts before he was cursed to crawl on his belly. Where does one get dragon out of that? That right there shows just how dishonest Khemikal is, didn't I literally just say he spew a bunch of unsubstantiated nonsense?... but hes the best debater lol.

Do you not belive Neanderthals existed? Were they not humanlike? So then why is my saying that a creature existed in the Bible that was not exactly human but human-like so farcicle?

[LadyForCamus]

Says the guy who rambled on for five or so pages about a hybrid man-snake.  I can’t even...lol.

First of all no one claimed it was a man-snake thats another lie.

Also it's s not something I just made up out of thin air luv, the fact that the serpent wasn't originally a snake is staight ouf of Jewish teachings...

I can post receipts if you'd like

I notice how you couldn't deny what I said, you could only deflect on to some unrelated nonsense that isn't been true...

What, exactly, am I supposed to be refuting again?  The Trinity happens to be in that category of things Christians assert, that I find so utterly, pathetically idiotic, that I don’t even bother to comment.  I just found it funny that you were accusing Grand of trolling because he was continuing a discussion with your fellow theists on a matter that you and your fellow theists dissgree, rather than addressing them directly.  This is a Theist/Theist problem, you see.  And yes please, make a fool of yourself again by regurgitating that nonsense if you like.  I’ll get the popcorn.

---

If you're going to believe in God, it's perfectly logical that there will be things that are beyond our comprehension. God is supposed to be a much more advanced entity than us, and it makes sense that there would be much associated with Him and how He works than we can fully wrap our heads around.

I rather think that is the point, if it is beyond comprehension then why have it as a doctrine at all ?

Over the years I've seen people try and explain it, all unsatisfactory, I'm convinced it's simply (at least as presented to us) a made up doctrine to attempt to explain some of the things Jesus supposedly said and portrayed himself to be.

---

Get it right camus, it was a fucking dragon, lol.

And everyone knows dragons are real.  I love how theists get all dramatic that you misrepresents one farcical talking creature with another, as though that would make it somehow more acceptable and rational.

Roo, I’m waiting for Huggy to figure out that every time we have this discussion, I use the word ‘snake’ instead of ‘serpent’, on purpose, because it amuses me to no end when he corrects me, lol

[SteveII]

I love this answer from the billygraham.org site. It just shows that, no matter how SteveII tries desperately to make the Trinity logical by reducing "nature" in the context of the Trinity to mere abstract nature, that other Christians (likely more well-versed than he) accept that the Trinity is beyond human comprehension, and there's no way to make sense out of this.

Here's what they say (and note especially the final paragraph!!):

The Bible shows very clearly that there is only one God, and yet that there are three personal distinctions in His complex nature, traditionally referred to as “three Persons in the Godhead”—God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.

Each is distinct from the others but never acts independently. They are one in nature and purpose. This mystery is called the doctrine of the Trinity, though that term is not used in the Bible. The teaching, however, is present in seed form in the Old Testament and is revealed explicitly in the New Testament. Note passages such as Matthew 28:19; John 10:30, 14:26; 2 Corinthians 13:14.

Our finite minds cannot understand or explain this mystery of God, which is nevertheless a fact. We must accept the truths found in the Word of God by faith even though we ourselves cannot comprehend them fully; read Hebrews 11:1, 3, 6 and 1 Corinthians 2:5-10, 14; 13:12.

It is really not surprising that the infinite God should be complex in His nature beyond the ability of finite humans to comprehend! This doctrine is absolutely essential to New Testament Christianity. Theologians have pointed out that if it were not true, the Bible would be unreliable, Christ would not be divine, and His death on the cross would not atone for our sins, being merely the death of a martyr.

https://billygraham.org/answer/can-you-e...ity-to-me/

At least, they're being honest, whoever came up with that answer.

I have no idea what you are rambling about with "abstract nature". 

Your continued foot stomping that the concept of the Trinity is illogical seems to come from your preconceived notion that it is, so no one could possibly explain it in a logical manner. In your silly quest, you keep finding phrases that you think help you--which ironically always follow other phrases that explain it pretty well. The latest attempt involves finding a statement that says "it's a mystery". So what? We have no example anywhere to compare it to so the concept is mysterious. No where in the entire quote does it even imply that the Trinity is illogical. In fact, it does the opposite. Hard to comprehend =/= illogical.

[GrandizerII]

I love this answer from the billygraham.org site. It just shows that, no matter how SteveII tries desperately to make the Trinity logical by reducing "nature" in the context of the Trinity to mere abstract nature, that other Christians (likely more well-versed than he) accept that the Trinity is beyond human comprehension, and there's no way to make sense out of this.

Here's what they say (and note especially the final paragraph!!):


https://billygraham.org/answer/can-you-e...ity-to-me/

At least, they're being honest, whoever came up with that answer.

I have no idea what you are rambling about with "abstract nature". 

Your continued foot stomping that the concept of the Trinity is illogical seems to come from your preconceived notion that it is, so no one could possibly explain it in a logical manner. In your silly quest, you keep finding phrases that you think help you--which ironically always follow other phrases that explain it pretty well. The latest attempt involves finding a statement that says "it's a mystery". So what? We have no example anywhere to compare it to so the concept is mysterious. No where in the entire quote does it even imply that the Trinity is illogical. In fact, it does the opposite. Hard to comprehend =/= illogical.

I quoted that one to show the clear contrast between Christians like you and Christians like the one quoted. One is humble about their human limitations, the other is not. Historically, the Trinity doctrine was brought forth in spite of its incomprehensibility, not because it makes sense. It was meant to reconcile the observed contradictions in the Bible, where on one hand, you had passages saying God is one, and other passages alluding to Jesus as being divine in some fashion. This was partly prompted by the theological battle that went on between Arius and Athanasius and co.

Fact of the matter, Steve, is that it's meant to defy logic. It's the only way they could reconcile the perceived contradictions.

So when you try to make it logical, you are no longer adhering to that same doctrine you think you're defending.

The official creeds/texts on this matter are clear that God is one Being (Entity) and that the Persons of God aren't "parallel" to each other. They are ontologically one and the same. God is not some abstract attribute or abstract collective of the divine Persons. God is not greater than the totality of the Persons or even any one of them. So Jesus being fully the one God is correct accordingly. There is a reason why nowhere in those texts that you falsely believe support your personal views does it say that any of the Persons of God are just a part of God. Did you see the word "part" or similar anywhere in those texts?

The Persons of God are wholly in one another (sexual puns, anyone?), and it clearly says so in the same Catechism I partly quoted. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are distinct as far as "personhood" goes but, in terms of substance, not only share the same nature, they are the same being (entity). Thus, my OP is accurate regarding the description of the Trinity, and the logical problems are inevitable. And you're going to have to deal with them sooner or later, if you wish to be open-minded and not shut your mind to potential truths based on logic and/or evidence.

[Minimalist]

So god has a multiple personality disorder?  Nice.  Sounds like he belongs in a padded cell.

[Haipule]

Not to mention that if any of the gospel horseshit is true ( which I seriously doubt!) then the people surrounding this jesus guy...and the godboy himself... were illiterate, Aramaic-speaking peasants and fishermen who wouldn't have known Greek if it bit them on the 

The Jerusalem area first century Jews spoke Aramaic to each other. Some, such as Jesus, could read Hebrew. To the Romans they spoke Latin. They spoke KoinE Greek to the Eastern Romans and the rest of the world. Alexander brought his language to the world and forced everyone to surrender to him in his language which is why Greek was the universal language of the time. Yes, most were illiterate.

[LadyForCamus]

And everyone knows dragons are real.  I love how theists get all dramatic that you misrepresents one farcical talking creature with another, as though that would make it somehow more acceptable and rational.

Except no one said anything about any farcical talking creature, what was said was the serpent was the closest thing to human out of all the beasts before he was cursed to crawl on his belly. Where does one get dragon out of that? That right there shows just how dishonest  Khemikal is, didn't I literally  just say he spew a bunch of unsubstantiated nonsense?... but hes the best debater lol.

Do you not belive Neanderthals existed? Were they not humanlike? So then why is my saying that a creature existed in the Bible that was not exactly human but human-like so farcicle?

Lol, Huggy, you’re failing to see the forest through the trees here.  What was the serpent then, genetically and biologically speaking? How did god disappear his legs? What biological mechanism was responsible for that? And you’re claiming he...spoke?  Out of his...serpent mouth?  None of this strikes you as the least bit ridiculous?

[SteveII]

I have no idea what you are rambling about with "abstract nature". 

Your continued foot stomping that the concept of the Trinity is illogical seems to come from your preconceived notion that it is, so no one could possibly explain it in a logical manner. In your silly quest, you keep finding phrases that you think help you--which ironically always follow other phrases that explain it pretty well. The latest attempt involves finding a statement that says "it's a mystery". So what? We have no example anywhere to compare it to so the concept is mysterious. No where in the entire quote does it even imply that the Trinity is illogical. In fact, it does the opposite. Hard to comprehend =/= illogical.

I quoted that one to show the clear contrast between Christians like you and Christians like the one quoted. One is humble about their human limitations, the other is not. 
Historically, the Trinity doctrine was brought forth in spite of its incomprehensibility, not because it makes sense.

Right here. This is were you go off an insert your simplistic understanding, bad definitions, and preconceived notions of the Trinity into the discussion. The doctrine of the Trinity is constructed around what has been revealed. There is nothing 'incomprehensible' about the doctrine. Not able to fully comprehend how it works is a simple fact because we do not have examples of it in our experience. But the fact that God is one essence but three persons is not 'incomprehensible' nor does it come close to not making sense. 

It was meant to reconcile the observed contradictions in the Bible, where on one hand, you had passages saying God is one, and other passages alluding to Jesus as being divine in some fashion. This was partly prompted by the theological battle that went on between Arius and Athanasius and co.

Fact of the matter, Steve, is that it's meant to defy logic. It's the only way they could reconcile the perceived contradictions.

Again with the definitions. It in no way whatsoever "defies logic". One indivisible entity (God) consisting of three persons (the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) contains no contradictions. It defies our experience. It is hard to comprehend how it works. But your argument is one whole question-begging mess. 

So when you try to make it logical, you are no longer adhering to that same doctrine you think you're defending.

You only assert that the Trinity is (and was meant to be--somehow) illogical. You have not shown us how--at all. Except to phrase your OP intentionally so it was. Your response to my first post was that I was not mainstream. Yet I am--I was just being more detailed and you were not expecting the detail nor knew how to respond to it. 

The official creeds/texts on this matter are clear that God is one Being (Entity) and that the Persons of God aren't "parallel" to each other.

This might be your problem. They are different persons who have actions/duties ascribed to them that are not the same as the actions/duties ascribed to the other members of the Godhead. 

They are ontologically one and the same.

In one way--that the all are one essence (God). In the personhood question, they are not ontologically the same. 

 God is not some abstract attribute or abstract collective of the divine Persons. God is not greater than the totality of the Persons or even any one of them. So Jesus being fully the one God is correct accordingly.

Ah, you might have seen the term "Jesus is fully God" and that is true. His divinity is the essence he shares (inseparably) with the other persons of the Godhead. The inverse is not true: that God is Jesus--because that would be incomplete. God is the three all together. 

There is a reason why nowhere in those texts that you falsely believe support your personal views does it say that any of the Persons of God are just a part of God. Did you see the word "part" or similar anywhere in those texts?

Yea, the links you posted go on and on about one God in essence consisting of three persons. When discussing one of those persons, you will be discussing part of the Godhead. 

The Persons of God are wholly in one another (sexual puns, anyone?), and it clearly says so in the same Catechism I partly quoted. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are distinct as far as "personhood" goes but, in terms of substance, not only share the same nature, they are the same being (entity). Thus, my OP is accurate regarding the description of the Trinity, and the logical problems are inevitable. And you're going to have to deal with them sooner or later, if you wish to be open-minded and not shut your mind to potential truths based on logic and/or evidence.

Your key phrase "...each one being fully the one God" makes no sense. You actually worded a logical contradiction into it to make it sound so and claimed this is mainstream belief on the Trinity.

[Minimalist]

The doctrine of the Trinity is constructed around what has been revealed.

Trinitarianism was so clearly "revealed" that it very nearly lost out to Arianism which diametrically opposed it.  It spread among the Germanic barbarians who overran the Western Roman Empire.  In 410 the Arian Goths sacked Rome and how much better the world would have been if they had wiped out the catholick assholes who were exerting their bullshit over Italy.  Oh well....such are the failings of history.

Nonetheless, the trinity was not so much "revealed" as it was imposed by the Eastern half of the empire.  War, not scripture, determined how your bullshit succeeded.