# Is the Christian Trinity Incoherent? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 16, 2009, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-christian-trinity-incoherent/521422 "2009-12-16T00:22:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2009, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-christian-trinity-incoherent/521422/41 "2009-12-16T20:01:20Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > I don’t know when the doctrine started, but giving God a son would seem to be very logical in the culture of the day (even if total nonsense to Jews.) However, there goes monotheism, and so the concept of the trinity was just retconning Jesus as divine Son of God into Jesus as God, so there is only one. It’s no less logical than lots of retcons. This does not fly, because it is already present in a very early form in the letters of Saint Paul, who was Jewish and writing to mixed communities of Jews, Greeks, and Romans. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2009, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-christian-trinity-incoherent/521422/42 "2009-12-16T20:04:20Z")
B.S. That’s like saying that the God of Moses and the God of Abraham and the God of Noah make Judaism non-monotheistic. Or appearing as a Pillar of Fire or Pillar of Cloud or showing his back to Moses, or as a burning bush. Deliberately doing that would be anti-Semitic. It is no less disgusting when it is pointed at Christians. If you want to be an atheist, that’s fine with me, but if God wants to dress up as Jesus one day or float about as the Holy Spirit the next or walk through the Garden as the Father on another, that doesn’t mean he is any more illogical than finding that Star Trek aliens can have off-spring with humans, in fact less so. Mocking people’s religion for kicks is impolite and borish. Those of us who are religious get that you don’t think it makes sense and don’t believe. There is no need to be an asshole about it. And if you insist on being a jerk, at least use smilies. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2009, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-christian-trinity-incoherent/521422/43 "2009-12-16T20:51:50Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > B.S. That’s like saying that the God of Moses and the God of Abraham and the God of Noah make Judaism non-monotheistic. Or appearing as a Pillar of Fire or Pillar of Cloud or showing his back to Moses, or as a burning bush. Deliberately doing that would be anti-Semitic. It is no less disgusting when it is pointed at Christians. If you want to be an atheist, that’s fine with me, but if God wants to dress up as Jesus one day or float about as the Holy Spirit the next or walk through the Garden as the Father on another, that doesn’t mean he is any more illogical than finding that Star Trek aliens can have off-spring with humans, in fact less so. > > Mocking people’s religion for kicks is impolite and borish. Those of us who are religious get that you don’t think it makes sense and don’t believe. There is no need to be an asshole about it. And if you insist on being a jerk, at least use smilies. This was not intended to be mocking in even the slightest way. It is intended to explain how this offshoot of Judaism became so popular among the pagans. Whatever I think about the theology of the early church fathers, I have to admit that they were absolutely brilliant marketers. Much of the principles of Christianity post-Jesus can be understood in this way. I am definitely not contending that Paul was a cynical salesman. I’m sure he absolutely believed in what he preached, but he had an intuitive genius in using marketing principles in doing so. Consider the abolition of dietary rules. When your product has something which stands in the way of its adoption by the masses, you change it. Is it really easier to believe that God changed his mind about this or that there was an attempt to assist people in achieving salvation at the expense of eliminating these laws. What are patron saints more similar to - something in Jewish tradition of Roman minor gods? (Saints are not gods, they just take on some of the functions of these gods.) We know that Christianity adopted many customs from the pagans - why not this also? This has nothing to do with atheism, and everything to do with not being raised in an environment where Christian beliefs were a given. I’m not sure an analogy to fiction, whether Star Trek or Sherlock Holmes, helps the case for the trinity much. Humans are amazingly inventive in finding explanations for even the most evidently self-contradictory texts. (Let’s wait for a replay of the Easter Story challenge as an example.) That many believers here just say the Trinity can’t be explained by logic marks is as particularly flagrant. None of this proves that it is not true, but an alternate explanation that explains all the facts must be considered. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2009, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-christian-trinity-incoherent/521422/44 "2009-12-16T20:54:40Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > This does not fly, because it is already present in a very early form in the letters of Saint Paul, who was Jewish and writing to mixed communities of Jews, Greeks, and Romans. The authentic letters or the ones written by others? In any case, I think this tenet would have evolved fairly early, since it would be an obvious issue with those who thought the Roman gods real. Did the Peter/James group push the Son of God or Son of Man aspects? I’d think they’d be closer to traditional Jewish belief - and closer to the actual beliefs of Jesus also. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2009, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-christian-trinity-incoherent/521422/45 "2009-12-16T21:41:40Z")
> [@Markxxx](#): > > Think of it like this there is ONE God, the Trinity represents the sides or aspects of him. > > GOD = MENTAL > JESUS = PHYSICAL > Holy GHOST = EMOTIONAl I admit it’s been awhile since the last time I considered any of this, but my recollection is that the notion that “there is ONE God, the Trinity represents the sides or aspects of him” doesn’t represent the theology of any long-established Christian denomination. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2009, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-christian-trinity-incoherent/521422/46 "2009-12-16T21:52:57Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > B.S. That’s like saying that the God of Moses and the God of Abraham and the God of Noah make Judaism non-monotheistic. Or appearing as a Pillar of Fire or Pillar of Cloud or showing his back to Moses, or as a burning bush. Deliberately doing that would be anti-Semitic. It is no less disgusting when it is pointed at Christians. If you want to be an atheist, that’s fine with me, but if God wants to dress up as Jesus one day or float about as the Holy Spirit the next or walk through the Garden as the Father on another, that doesn’t mean he is any more illogical than finding that Star Trek aliens can have off-spring with humans, in fact less so. The problem isn’t that he wants to dress up as Jesus one day and walk through the Garden as the Father on another. The problem is that he wants to dress up as Jesus _ **while** _ praying to the Father, saying stuff like “Let not my will, but your will, be done.” _ **That’s** _ non-monotheistic in a way that “pillar of fire one day, burning bush another, white-bearded old dude some other time” _ **isn’t.** _ We don’t need a mystery that cannot be conceived to grasp the Jewish concept; it’s like something out of Star Trek or maybe a comic book, but it’s still pretty straightforward. An entity who asks his father to forgive those who know not what they do, and then asks why have _ **you** _ forsaken _ **me** _ – for him to be the “you” _ **and** _ the “me” in that conversation is endlessly mysterious for would-be monotheists. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2009, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-christian-trinity-incoherent/521422/47 "2009-12-16T22:12:19Z")
> [@Markxxx](#): > > Why is this so hard to grasp? God is three people in ONE person? > > How you ask can three be one? > > How about, “me, myself and I” > > I am one person, but I have a physical side, a mental side and an emotional side." > > Any one of those sides or if you perfer, “persons” can effect the other. For instance, if I have the flu, I’m sick which effects me physically, but it can also make me less alert _mentally_, which will cause me _emotional_ distress. > > Think of it like this there is ONE God, the Trinity represents the sides or aspects of him. > > GOD = MENTAL > JESUS = PHYSICAL > Holy GHOST = EMOTIONAl That’s modalism. Anyone who says they can explain it, especially by analogy, inevitably explains it wrong - because it’s _exceptional_. It’s not _like_ anything else. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2009, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-christian-trinity-incoherent/521422/48 "2009-12-16T22:57:42Z")
> [@Sinaijon](#): > > It is logically contradictory that the cat is both dead and alive, since those states are mutually exclusive. It’s only logically contradictory if you assume that only one state is possible at a time. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2009, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-christian-trinity-incoherent/521422/49 "2009-12-16T23:02:34Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > That’s modalism. > > Anyone who says they can explain it, especially by analogy, inevitably explains it wrong - because it’s _exceptional_. It’s not _like_ anything else. I can explain it. It’s a case where contradictory assertions have been made and it has been decided that none of them can be rejected because that would cast doubt on the reliability of the canon. Thus, a conscious decision has been made to ignore the contradictions on an institutional level. Seems simple enough to me, and analogizes directly to when any TV show breaks canon with a successive episode and does not attempt to retcon the peices back together - except possibly that most shows don’t make ignoring the issue an _official_ stance. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2009, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-christian-trinity-incoherent/521422/50 "2009-12-16T23:04:53Z")
That’s an interesting and possibly useful explanation of how it works, but not _what it is_. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2009, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-christian-trinity-incoherent/521422/51 "2009-12-16T23:08:05Z")
Just to elaborate. It can easily be _described_. It cannot be coherently explained how the description works. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2009, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-christian-trinity-incoherent/521422/52 "2009-12-16T23:11:06Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > That’s an interesting and possibly useful explanation of how it works, but not _what it is_. Yes it is; “contradictory assertions”. They are assertions - bare, evidence free claims - that contradict each other. There is no underlying reality; not even a conceptual framework for one, which is why it gets labeled a “mystery”. The assertions are all there are. ---
**Author:** ![Homebrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Homebrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Homebrew)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2009, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-christian-trinity-incoherent/521422/53 "2009-12-16T23:15:29Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Seems simple enough to me, and analogizes directly to when any TV show breaks canon with a successive episode and does not attempt to retcon the peices back together - except possibly that most shows don’t make ignoring the issue an _official_ stance. Plus, TV shows that have a canon don’t claim to be something other than fiction. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2009, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-christian-trinity-incoherent/521422/54 "2009-12-16T23:27:39Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > Just to elaborate. It can easily be _described_. It cannot be coherently explained how the description works. What’s to describe? As noted, all that’s here are assertions. If I were to assert that the sisters’ mother in Charmed was killed by a water demon, and then later assert that she was killed by a (very different) sea hag instead, can you explain how this contradiction “works”? It’s just an unreconciled contradiction in asserted dogma. That’s all there is to it. The only notable thing about is is that the church is refusing to admit that there’s a problem there. Which given the usual stance to the various other contradictory stuff in the bible isn’t even that notable. > [@Homebrew](#): > > Plus, TV shows that have a canon don’t claim to be something other than fiction. Actually I’ve met very few shows that admit to be fiction inside the _canon_, and have read a few first-person fiction books that claim to be true in their text, with no disclaimer in sight. (Make of that what you will.) ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2009, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-christian-trinity-incoherent/521422/55 "2009-12-16T23:33:58Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Yes it is; “contradictory assertions”. They are assertions - bare, evidence free claims - that contradict each other. There is no underlying reality; not even a conceptual framework for one, which is why it gets labeled a “mystery”. The assertions are all there are. I don’t believe that’s being contested in, or is even the topic of this thread. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2009, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-christian-trinity-incoherent/521422/56 "2009-12-16T23:35:27Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > What’s to describe? As noted, all that’s here are assertions. If I were to assert that the sisters’ mother in Charmed was killed by a water demon, and then later assert that she was killed by a (very different) sea hag instead, can you explain how this contradiction “works”? > > It’s just an unreconciled contradiction in asserted dogma. That’s all there is to it. The only notable thing about is is that the church is refusing to admit that there’s a problem there. Which given the usual stance to the various other contradictory stuff in the bible isn’t even that notable. I don’t think the church is avoiding addressing the contradiction, but rather, is cherishing it and insisting that it indicates something profound. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2009, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-christian-trinity-incoherent/521422/57 "2009-12-16T23:39:41Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > I don’t think the church is avoiding addressing the contradiction, but rather, is cherishing it and insisting that it indicates something profound. That’s kind of avoiding addressing it though (at least the contradiction part of it, anyway). I guess I just don’t see any further depth to be found in the subject, besides perhaps the academic question of what the classifications of the different heretical attempts to inject some sense of the notion are. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2009, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-christian-trinity-incoherent/521422/58 "2009-12-16T23:50:11Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > I don’t believe that’s being contested in, or is even the topic of this thread. The topic is “_ **Is the Christian Trinity Incoherent?** _”; pointing out that the claims made about it are contradictory is a way of saying “yes”. So yes, it is on-subject. Besides; what I said was in response to something you said. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2009, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-christian-trinity-incoherent/521422/59 "2009-12-16T23:50:18Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Seems simple enough to me, and analogizes directly to when any TV show breaks canon with a successive episode and does not attempt to retcon the peices back together - except possibly that most shows don’t make ignoring the issue an _official_ stance. Again, the problem is that this isn’t about a “successive episode” that breaks the TV show’s earlier canon; the better analogy would be to some TV show that establishes and breaks canon in the _ **same** _ episode. The official stance in this case really _ **is** _ that the character who asks “why have you forsaken me” after explicitly specifying that “let not my will but thy will be done” _ **does** _ claim to be “you” and “me”. ---
**Author:** ![jsc1953](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/5daacb/32.png) [@jsc1953](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jsc1953)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2009, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-christian-trinity-incoherent/521422/60 "2009-12-17T00:03:16Z")
Did the theologians here on the SDMB think that this is a particularly new debate? And that they could shed some additional insight that hadn’t come up in the last 2000 years? 😉 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-christian-trinity-incoherent/521422.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-christian-trinity-incoherent/521422.md?page=4)