I don’t buy it - it seems to me way more likely that the early church thinkers tried to figure out some way to make logical sense, but finally settled on the “mystery” excuse. If there were a logical way to explain it, that’s the explanation we would have, but it can’t be done, so they chalk it up to mystery.
Typically, Christians who believe in the trinity don’t believe A = B = C in this case. Jesus and the Father are distinct. For example, Jesus is human, the Father is not. Hence, A does not = B. Similarly for C.
It’s not any more illogical than Schroedinger’s cat.
The Shroedinger’s cat scenario presents something counterintuitive, but not logically contradictory. As formulated in the OP, the trinitarian doctrine is logically contradictory.
I think it is an attempt to claim monotheism . It fails. The church has a lot of gods .
Huh?
Perhaps it developed that way, perhaps not. Whatever the case, the doctrine as it currently stands is not at all surprised to find itself intellectually impenetrable.
As a Christian, I accept the idea that God is beyond my (complete) understanding. Indeed, a God that I could fully understand, describe, or explain would be too small to be GOD. (Perhaps similar to the way the Tao Te Ching says “The tao that can be described is not the eternal Tao”?)
I don’t know whether God transcends the ordinary rules of logic, or whether you’re just using them inappropriately (as in the case of silly-gisms like “Nothing is better than eternal happiness; a ham sandwich is better than nothing; therefore, a ham sandwich is better than eternal happiness”).
I did a bit of research years ago, when I discovered that my understanding of the Trinity was pretty close to Modal Monarchianism. (I was vaguely worried at first, and then later somewhat titillated, to discover that I might be considered a heretic).
AFAICT (not real far), the issue with Sabellianism is
Trinitarianism says that the Trinity is of the essence of God; Sabellianism says it is only God the Father manifesting Himself in various ways.
It doesn’t sound like much of a distinction to me, but early church history (and later church history, for that matter) is full of this sort of thing.
As Mangetout and others have mentioned, it isn’t going to be something that can be explained. Is a photon a particle or a wave? That sort of thing.
Regards,
Shodan
Where does it say so explicitly? Who/what says this - one of the creeds, one of the early Church fathers, who?
“Send it off in a letter to yourself.”
-Steely Dan
It’s always seemes obvious to me that the Trinity was an attempt to rationalize the belief in the divility of Jesus vis-a-vis monotheism.
It is logically contradictory that the cat is both dead and alive, since those states are mutually exclusive.
Christians have faith that God, being omnipotent, is not bound by logic, even though we are.
Solves the problem quite succinctly, dontcha think?
Ah. My bad for using ‘explicitly’ largely as an intensifier.
The Doctrine of the Trinity is intrinsically and knowingly impenetrable by logic or analogy. - was what I meant to say.
(It may be that it does say so explicitly somewhere in some early writing, but my position in this discussion does not require it, so for now at least, I can’t be bothered to go looking).
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
No, because God is not the one who is defying logic here.
There’s really no satisfactory answer for the OP; the doctrine of the trinity is by its very nature non-empirical, so arguments about it are purely philosophical/speculative. Depending on the criteria used to judge them, such arguments can seemeither completely incoherent or absolute truth. By way of analogy, Cantor’s theory of infinite sets is only coherent if you accept both the premises and the consequences of those premises. A lot of folks may balk at a theory that states sets can be both larger than and yet the same size as another set, and there isn’t really an empirical way to prove such things exist, but if you accept the premises and follow the logic, it makes sense (i.e. is coherent).
Of course, the trinity can simply be accepted as a mystery–a blind belief. But scholars have spent centuries offering some justifications for that belief–based, of course, on other tenets of the faith. If you’re a non-believer all of this will seem silly, but I don’t think it’s right to say it’s "incoherent’, since an idea can be coherent with other knowledge and still be wrong, and I don’t know a person alive who immediately considers a belief “incoherent” some new piece of evidence appears to contradict it.
The basics of the trinity are that there is one God (or Godhead) in three persons. On the face of it this contradicts the logical law of the excluded middle, since two things cannot both be the same and different (this is the objection in the OP). In attempting to explain this contradiction several (non-theological) justifications have been proposed; there are arguments for or against most of them, but in my understanding two rather extreme interpretations are effectively ruled out by nearly all theologians:
Modalism (aka Sabelianism) - the belief that there is one god operating in three different “modes”, like a man who can be a father, a son, and a husband all at the same time. This view is rejected explicitly in the Athanasian creed; God must be three distinct persons.
Monarchianism - specifically a belief that God the Father is a single being (“monarch” = “one ruler” of the universe), and hence that the other members of the trinity are separate beings. The others are either designated as lesser, direct creations of the Father (Arianism, Adoptionism et. al.) or co-equals perfectly united with the Father in purpose, will, etc. (sort of like how all members of a baseball team work together to achieve a common goal). This view is explicitly rejected by the Nicean creed, although the theology of the Mormon church is pretty much in line with this interpretation.
As the doctrine of the trinity was argued in the 4th-6th century, it became clear that the language used to describe the arrangement was open to misinterpretation. Nevertheless, some of the apparent contradiction was philosophically resolved by looking at two levels of reality–something like the metaphysical distinction between “form” and “instance” in Plato’s philosophy (this isn’t completely accurate, because the uniqueness of God gives him special properties that make for exceptions in the usual Neo-Platonist metaphysics, but it’s close enough for these purposes). The problem with each of the rejected interpretations is that both “unity” and “person” are applied at only one of these levels: On the contrary, one should admit separation in the particular instance of god, but unity in their deeper essence.
Still, that didn’t stop the arguments, and theologians looked for ways to at least make the doctrine more understandable (neo-Platonism was a pretty complex subject for your average believer to swallow). St. Augustine provides perhaps the most complete method, as his work “On the Trinity” tried to develop a reasonable real-world analog for the trinity. He quickly rejects most physical analogs (e.g. an inseparable mixture of three liquids) and finds problems with more abstract ones (e.g. Father-Son-Holy Spirit = Lover-Beloved-Love), but he eventually settles on the human mind as a decent-enough equivalent–glibly, he said the separate functions of Memory, Understanding and Will bear a relationship that matches Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (on preview, this is exactly the point Markxxx made). St. Aquinas developed this line much further, and I believe for the most part it is the explanation accepted by Catholic theologians.
My point is not to argue any of these theological beliefs–frankly I don’t believe in the trinity. However, I respect that enough thought has gone into the doctrine on the part of some very intelligent thinkers to the point that, IMO, it is at least coherent if you accept the basics of Christian theology.
I may talk to myself, but I don’t consider myself my own son.
Exactly. We can have this bizarre concept, totally outside the realm of hundreds if not thousands of years of Judaism, or we can consider how the concept might have evolved.
The early Christians lived in a society where the Emperor was considered divine and where nearly every hero of legend was descended from gods. Alexander claimed to be also. So, they are trying to sell the product, and run into the problem with the gentiles of trying to explain why they should listen to some guy - some guy who preached for a short time and got himself killed. 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.
Han shot first and Han didn’t shoot first. It’s a mystery beyond human understanding.
The Romans also had gods in charge of all sorts of stuff, minor ones. How can we understand the Catholic concept of patron saints of all sorts of things as an adoption of these small gods. Converts used to praying to the god of travel for protection could pray to the saint of travel, still feel protected, and still be good Christians.