Is the Christian Trinity Incoherent?

[Spoke]

@Nava

Yeah. You don’t talk to yourself, or consider several options, or have times when you’d say “stop the world, I’m getting off” but you realize that wouldn’t really be the best option, even if you really, really, really want to do it?

Here’s the one I have a problem with: “My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?”

That’s something you say to yourself?

[Spoke]

@sqweels

It’s always seemes obvious to me that the Trinity was an attempt to rationalize the belief in the divinity of Jesus vis-a-vis monotheism.

I think that’s exactly right. I’m pretty certain there’s nothing in the Bible itself about “the trinity” or “God in three persons” or anything of that sort. It is a later rationalization.

C’mon Christians, embrace the polytheism!

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@jsc1953

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?

Winky aside, it’s my hope that there are two quite different types of Christians: those who realize the contradiction but don’t mind it, and those who haven’t realized it yet but would mind (and possibly drop the whole thing) if some new-to-them insight were brought to their attention. Possibly a Christian in that second category could be enlightened by a theologian who’d made the same point centuries earlier, but so long as he hasn’t come across said writings then perhaps we can help out.

So, yeah, on my view of things, forget Christian theologians; we could even grant that the incoherence has been obvious to every Jew for almost two thousand years. What’s key is that some Christians may, for all that, still not yet have noticed.

[chacoguy]

@Attack_from_the_3rd_dimension

If I were to put a sock puppet on my hand, it Mr. Socky, would be me. I could talk to it, it could ‘talk’ to me. We are one and the same, yet we can chat.

But, of course, you’d get banned.

[begbert2]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

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”.

Er, don’t both those statements agree that Jesus and God are two separate entities?

I think that the contradictions, while all within the same bible*, were for the most part written at different times and probably by different people. So it’s less like a single episode than a complete box set with the various contradictory episodes in it.

Which is not to say that it’s impossible to contradict yourself within a single narrative. But I think it’s a less-likely explanation in this case.

*ETA: well, the same canon, anyway. I’m not sure that any of this Jesus=God=HG stuff made it into the actual bible itself.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@begbert2

Er, don’t both those statements agree that Jesus and God are two separate entities?

I think that the contradictions, while all within the same bible*, were for the most part written at different times and probably by different people. So it’s less like a single episode than a complete box set with the various contradictory episodes in it.

Eh, possibly maybe. The book of John includes “I and the Father are one” talk as well as various “two separate entities” stuff; is that single gospel the box set, or is it one episode in the box set that is the Bible?

[Mangetout]

@Der_Trihs

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.

Well, OK. I guess.

Besides; what I said was in response to something you said.

In reponse to the above, I would like to say:

Banana Empanada

As this is my response to the above quoted statement, it must be on-topic

[The_Second_Stone]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

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.

So your God doesn’t talk to himself and is powerless over time. Got it. The Christian God is free to talk to himself, go forward and backward in time, lift rocks that are so big he can’t created them and so forth. Just because you don’t understand what other people’s concept of God is doesn’t mean that you should mock that particular belief.

It’s no more incoherent than believing that God stopped the sun for a day or created the earth in seven days, or loved and respected Job. Frankly, I find your interpretation of Christianity to be downright offensive, along with your personality. There are plenty of true things that can be laid at the feet of Christians to support your disgusting bigotry, but your asinine comments about monotheism and Christianity are out of line in my opinion. I’m offended.

[begbert2]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

Eh, possibly maybe. The book of John includes “I and the Father are one” talk as well as various “two separate entities” stuff; is that single gospel the box set, or is it one episode in the box set that is the Bible?

First one sounds like metaphor to me, asserting a commonailty of purpose. And I mean that would be my first interpretation of it. (And having done a little googling, it’s still my interpretation.) Still I suppose that you could possibly maybe decide that the other interpretation is the unambigously correct one, and run with that like an intercepted football, if you wanted to have a self-contradictory text.

@Mangetout

Banana Empanada

Cite?

[begbert2]

@The_Second_Stone

So your God doesn’t talk to himself and is powerless over time. Got it. The Christian God is free to talk to himself, go forward and backward in time, lift rocks that are so big he can’t created them and so forth. Just because you don’t understand what other people’s concept of God is doesn’t mean that you should mock that particular belief.

It’s no more incoherent than believing that God stopped the sun for a day or created the earth in seven days, or loved and respected Job. Frankly, I find your interpretation of Christianity to be downright offensive, along with your personality. There are plenty of true things that can be laid at the feet of Christians to support your disgusting bigotry, but your asinine comments about monotheism and Christianity are out of line in my opinion. I’m offended.

God holding differing opinions from himself is incoherent, in that it doesn’t make sense even if you make assumptions about his divinity. It’s not comparable to anything else you mention except lifting the unliftable rock, which I think you’ll find very few Christians think God can do. So perhaps you’re the one mischaracterizing Christanity, not him.

[Der_Trihs]

@begbert2

It’s not comparable to anything else you mention except lifting the unliftable rock, which I think you’ll find very few Christians think God can do.

I don’t have any numbers, never having seen surveys on it but I have run into a fair number of Christians who think that God can lift unliftable rocks, make 2+3=4, and otherwise break logic.

[Captain_Amazing]

@spoke-

Here’s the one I have a problem with: “My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?”

That’s something you say to yourself?

It’s a biblical quotation. Psalm 22:

My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me, so far from the words of my groaning? O my God, I cry out by day, but you do not answer, by night, and am not silent. Yet you are enthroned as the Holy One; you are the praise of Israel. In you our fathers put their trust; they trusted and you delivered them. They cried to you and were saved; in you they trusted and were not disappointed. But I am a worm and not a man, scorned by men and despised by the people. All who see me mock me; they hurl insults, shaking their heads: “He trusts in the LORD; let the LORD rescue him. Let him deliver him, since he delights in him.”

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@begbert2

Eh, possibly maybe. The book of John includes “I and the Father are one” talk as well as various “two separate entities” stuff; is that single gospel the box set, or is it one episode in the box set that is the Bible?

First one sounds like metaphor to me, asserting a commonailty of purpose. And I mean that would be my first interpretation of it. (And having done a little googling, it’s still my interpretation.) Still I suppose that you could possibly maybe decide that the other interpretation is the unambigously correct one, and run with that like an intercepted football, if you wanted to have a self-contradictory text.

No, I’m happy to interpret it the other way instead; I’m not a Christian, I don’t believe in the Trinity. My claim is that Christians who believe in the Trinity don’t interpret that as a mere metaphor; they don’t read it as merely asserting commonality of purpose. If anything, I’d prefer to (a) read all such assertions in light of your interpretation, and (b) call it “Judaism”; I just don’t believe that’s what the OP means when asking whether the Christian Trinity is incoherent.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@The_Second_Stone

Frankly, I find your interpretation of Christianity to be downright offensive, along with your personality. There are plenty of true things that can be laid at the feet of Christians to support your disgusting bigotry, but your asinine comments about monotheism and Christianity are out of line in my opinion. I’m offended.

And – if I’m being honest – I of course find your interpretation of monotheism and Christianity to be downright offensive, along with your personality; I’m offended by your asinine comments about Judaism, which IMHO should never, ever be equated with Christianity when it comes to monotheism.

But, as per the “IMHO”, that’s just my opinion; I’d never kick off a round of personal insults because of it. I don’t know why you decided to introduce insults; I truly do find your claims asinine and offensive, but that’s not enough for me to ratchet up the vitriol. I’m likewise happy to keep responding in kind, but isn’t it better for both of us to cool down and stow our respective offense while sticking to a discussion the claims?

Here, I’ll give it a shot:

So your God doesn’t talk to himself

False.

and is powerless over time. Got it.

Also false.

The Christian God is free to talk to himself, go forward and backward in time, lift rocks that are so big he can’t created them and so forth. Just because you don’t understand what other people’s concept of God is doesn’t mean that you should mock that particular belief.

I’m not following you here; this isn’t about time travel any more than it’s about talking to himself. I’m fine with a Jesus who talks to himself; I merely object to a Jesus who talks to himself and says “let not my will but your will be done”. Jesus, right then, is talking to the Father right then about what each of them is willing; no mention of going back and forth in time is offered or required, any more than when one asks the other to forgive people or cries out about why the other has forsaken him.

You say it’s “no more incoherent than believing that God stopped the sun for a day or created the earth in seven days”. Why? No such use of power calls for a mystery that can’t be understood; they may well be tremendous, and may well be hard to believe – but they’re easy to understand, sure as they’re entirely compatible with monotheism. (Would the OP have gotten any traction upon asking whether the claim about stopping the sun or creating the earth involves an incoherent belief?)

[Der_Trihs]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

I’m not following you here; this isn’t about time travel any more than it’s about talking to himself. I’m fine with a Jesus who talks to himself; I merely object to a Jesus who talks to himself and says “let not my will but your will be done”. Jesus, right then, is talking to the Father right then about what each of them is willing; no mention of going back and forth in time is offered or required, any more than when one asks the other to forgive people or cries out about why the other has forsaken him.

God is supposed to know the future; that’s equivalent to time travel.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@Der_Trihs

God is supposed to know the future; that’s equivalent to time travel.

But I have no problem with a God who knows the future (which is arguably equivalent to time travel) or even a God who can time travel (which is time travel). Neither power necessarily involves an incoherence.

[gonzomax]

When Christianity was being formed most religions were polytheistic. The hot ones were monotheistic.
Christianity has lots of gods, the Blessed Trinity is just one trap they had to weasel out of. The Virgin Mary can do miracles and answer prayers. Does that make her a god? There are angel that talk to god and are invisible. Are they not gods? There are devils minions trotting around doing the devils work. Ever see one? Then of course the outcome of the final battle between god and the devil is supposed to be in question. How could he defeat god if he is not a god himself?
Just face it, Christianity is a polytheistic religion. There is no shame in that. That is just the way it is.

[cosmosdan]

** Is the Christian Trinity Incoherent? **

Only if they are all speaking at the same time, through my dog.

[The_Second_Stone]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

And – if I’m being honest – I of course find your interpretation of monotheism and Christianity to be downright offensive, along with your personality; I’m offended by your asinine comments about Judaism, which IMHO should never, ever be equated with Christianity when it comes to monotheism.

But, as per the “IMHO”, that’s just my opinion; I’d never kick off a round of personal insults because of it. I don’t know why you decided to introduce insults; I truly do find your claims asinine and offensive, but that’s not enough for me to ratchet up the vitriol. I’m likewise happy to keep responding in kind, but isn’t it better for both of us to cool down and stow our respective offense while sticking to a discussion the claims?

Here, I’ll give it a shot:

False.

Also false.

I’m not following you here; this isn’t about time travel any more than it’s about talking to himself. I’m fine with a Jesus who talks to himself; I merely object to a Jesus who talks to himself and says “let not my will but your will be done”. Jesus, right then, is talking to the Father right then about what each of them is willing; no mention of going back and forth in time is offered or required, any more than when one asks the other to forgive people or cries out about why the other has forsaken him.

You say it’s “no more incoherent than believing that God stopped the sun for a day or created the earth in seven days”. Why? No such use of power calls for a mystery that can’t be understood; they may well be tremendous, and may well be hard to believe – but they’re easy to understand, sure as they’re entirely compatible with monotheism. (Would the OP have gotten any traction upon asking whether the claim about stopping the sun or creating the earth involves an incoherent belief?)

Your comments are disgustingly bigoted. Frankly I don’t know whether you are being honest, nor do I care.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@The_Second_Stone

Your comments are disgustingly bigoted. Frankly I don’t know whether you are being honest, nor do I care.

So leave me out of the equation and address the comments. It doesn’t matter whether I’m being honest; I am, but so what?

My claim is that someone who talks to himself involves no incoherence (which presumably isn’t bigoted), and neither does creating the earth in a matter of days or going forward and backward in time (which also doesn’t seem bigoted). My claim is that none of those claims require one to believe in a mystery that people can’t even begin to understand; they’re all rather straightforward propositions (which also doesn’t seem bigoted). None of them have any bearing on monotheism, either (ditto).

My claim is that – by definition – talk about how the Trinity does require a belief in some mystery that folks can’t even begin to understand means it must therefore be different from the above in type rather than degree; no such talk is required for the allegedly analogous claims. I don’t see how that can be bigoted, it’s a different kind of belief.

Someone who talks to someone else about their differing wills, or about why one has forsaken the other, or requests for the other one to forgive someone else, does involve an incoherence unless they’re separate entities; it does have ramifications for claims of monotheism. Forget whether I’m truly disgusted by someone who parallels the Trinity with Old Testament monotheism as per the First Commandment; I am, but (a) the rest stands regardless of my personal feelings, sure as (b) I’ll gladly address your claims despite my personal feelings about you.

Why not turn the other cheek and do likewise?