Thursday 6 July 2017

THE HOLY TRINITY*

* Or, Holy Crap this is all stuff and nonsense.






Richard (of RBB) asked why I don't do a Post on The Holy Trinity. I thought about it and even had a quick look at what the nutters have to say about it - both the god-botherers and the atheists - but it all got a bit tiresome so I merely copied what a couple of true believers (in the sense of people who believe the truth - aka Atheists) have said.

Enjoy:




Undeniably Atheist

"These two criticisms are extremely intertwined; I’ll try to differentiate them though. The first relates primarily to the absurdity of it. What is the trinity? How can one god be three persons/people? Does Yahweh have multiple personality disorder? These questions raise interesting concerns, which are never answered by theologians, the only answers we ever receive are statements of overwhelming inanity like “God is mysterious” or incredibly weak analogies. Most of the analogies that are used by Christians actually better demonstrate other non-Trinitarian doctrines that were deemed heretical.
Does Christianity even require the trinity? In my opinion, no it doesn’t. I am not a biblical scholar, but it seems that deriving the doctrine of the trinity from the Biblical texts requires some mental and theological gymnastics. Besides the polytheistic/Henotheistic/Monolatrist vibes one gets from many Old Testament passages, the rest is extremely monotheistic, and there are no hints that Yahweh is actually three entities. The doctrine of the trinity isn’t even implicitly taught in the New Testament, but rather seems to be a poorly constructed doctrine based on a few scattered verses mentioning the spirit of God, various passages from John and Paul’s writings that allude to the supposed divinity of Jesus, and some of the polytheistic references from the Old Testament. The only time they are all mentioned at once as far as I know is in the prescription of the Rite of Baptism, which I suspect may even be a later interpolation.
As many will be aware, some early sects of the Christian cult were not even Trinitarian, and the primary reason that most denominations today are, is because this was the position of the various Catholic councils that deemed other views heretical. Some examples of other views are the Modal view of God, where the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were just different ‘modes’ of God, or expressions. In this view, the deity was still very much singular. Other views included ones where Jesus was either not human, or not divine such as Arianism (Do not confuse this with Aryanism).
What does the trinity even bring to the religion? Nothing. What doctrines are illuminated by God being split into three personalities? Why would an infinite deity require being composed of 3 parts? It is questions like these remaining almost entirely unanswered that makes me more certain that the religion is of purely human origin. Doctrines were invented whimsically to try to explain ideas, but instead they only serve to confuse. Apparently the god of the Bible is the author of the confusion, because the god of the bible is mankind.

In 325, the Council of Nicaea adopted the Nicene Creed which described Christ as “God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father”. The creed used the term homoousios (of one substance) to define the relationship between the Father and the Son. After more than fifty years of debate, homoousios was recognised as the hallmark of orthodoxy, and was further developed into the formula of “three persons, one being”.

*****************


Forgive me for stating the obvious, but the Christian doctrine of the trinity is utterly ridiculous. Not only do I find the idea to be unfeasible and nonsensical, but as far as I can tell, it isn’t even necessary for the Christian religion to exist."


THE HOLY TRINITY AS INCOHERENT #1

BY JONATHAN MS PEARCE

"The Holy Trinity has had a problematic history, partly evidenced by point of fact that theologians still don’t agree on how it works, and partly seen from its ex post facto evolution, shoehorned into the scant evidence of the biblical texts. From Ignatius of Antioch onwards we see development of the idea in early church thinking, until it is codified at the Council of Nicaea in the 4th century CE. There will be more talk later on what was creedally set out.

Existence Properties

In simple terms, we have three aspects (in a simple philosophical/general sense) to the Godhead, such that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are in some way all God. Let us look at very fundamental understandings of existence properties. Logically, Jesus is God as well as God the Father being God. Where A = God the Father, B = Jesus and C = the Holy Spirit:


1. A = B


2. A = C


3. A = D


4. But B ≠ A


5. B ≠ C


6. C ≠ D


and so on.


What this means is that if the Godhead has, say, 10 properties that identify it has having the label Godhead (something like this must be the case – it must have identifiable properties or the term ‘Godhead’ is meaningless and has no reference) the we have some issues. If Jesus = the Godhead, then Jesus must have all of these properties. But then Jesus is exactly synonymous with the Godhead. But since Jesus is seen as in some way identifiably different to the Godhead, hence the two semantic terms, this cannot logically be the case. And vice versa. So to say Jesus is fully God is meaningless unless to say that Jesus is a perfect synonym of the Godhead. Which then must apply to all the others. The Holy Spirit to be fully God must fully have these properties too, but then they are all synonymous and not able to be differentiated.


Now, these aspects can’t be fully God if they lack some Godlike/Godhead properties. But what if they had more? Perhaps Jesus had 11 properties, 10 of which belonged to the Godhead. But then the Godhead cannot be part or a subset of the Jesus properties, less than Jesus in some discernible way. Or perhaps Jesus = the Godhead + human body. This is intuitively problematic, such that Jesus becomes a different ‘entity’/aspect with more than the properties of the Godhead. (I shall return to this later.)


Furthermore, The HS and Father must have different properties to Jesus in order to be differentiated as aspects/parts/persons/essences/whatever in order to be identified as such. It cannot be that the HS has exactly the same, no more no less, properties as Jesus because otherwise that would be Jesus (as mentioned before)! In order to say, “That is Jesus and that, over there, is the HS” such that they are identifiable as each person, they must have differentiated properties. But that means, if these properties are properties of being God, that neither can be fully God. The HS cannot have a godlike property that Jesus does not have, otherwise Jesus cannot be fully God. This seems to be the crux. Before I continue, let us look at some heresies.


Sabellianism/Modalism

Modalism suggests, as hinted in the previous paragraphs, that the Trinity has three aspects or manifestations of one person. Thus the Father could present himself as the Son, and in turn the Son could be manifested as the Spirit. However, this is seen as heresy (Sabellianism). But my points stand regardless of this position. Let me list a few other manifestations that the Trinity supposedly isn’t.

Adoptionism

Adoptionism was the belief that Jesus was an ordinary man, born of Joseph and Mary, who became the Christ and Son of God at his baptism.

Arianism
 The Arian concept of Christ is that the Son of God did not always exist, but was created by—and is therefore distinct from—God the Father. This belief is grounded in the Gospel of John (14:28)[3] passage: “You heard me say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.”

Swedenborgianism

The best way of understanding this is that each part makes up a third, mathematically speaking, and they all add up to one. No, not so, apparently.


Polytheism

No, they’re not three gods, either. Not separately so.
So where does this leave us? Well, here is one particular definition:

The Divine Name is numerically one, and yet in this One Name there are three persons distinguished: The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19-20).

The church receives her benediction from peculiar blessing for each of these Three (2 Corinthians 13:14).

Their different personalities are recognised (1 Corinthians 12:4-6). Christ refers to Himself with the pronoun “I,” and at the same time to the Father as “He,” and to the Spirit (who proceeds from the Father, and thus distinct from Him), again as “He,” rather than “it,” clearly meaning a person, not an influence or mere power. And yet these Three possess the one indivisible divine essence, and are constituted distinct persons by certain incommunicable properties, not common in one with the other two.


2 comments:

Richard (of RBB) said...

Bring back Robert!

Robert and the Catholics said...

Critical analyses.
In true atheist style the writer (I assume it is not Peter) starts with outlandish statements and asks many questions.
Atheist I've learnt gobal up this type of stuff.
He tells us that the doctrine of the trinity is not even implicitly taught in the New Teastament.
Jesus referred to the Father many times and told us he had to go but He would send the Holy Spirit at the last supper. That's more than implied. It's an out right promise.
He says some early sects didn't accept the trinity. So what!
Then he asks a lot more questions about why we need the trinity and concludes they are unanswered! What!
Then he concludes "Forgive me for stating the obvious, but the Christian doctrine of the trinity is utterly ridiculous. Not only do I find the idea to be unfeasible and nonsensical, but as far as I can tell, it isn’t even necessary for the Christian religion to exist." Good luck to him!
In the article I do not see evidence to support his case. Obvously because he can not have any!

Here's the next one. The Holy trinity as incoherent.
His attempt is incoherent. eg Where A = God the Father, B = Jesus and C = the Holy Spirit: 1. A = B 2. A = C 3. A = D 4. But B ≠ A 5. B ≠ C 6. C ≠ D and so on. What!
Once again atheists lap this type of stuff up because it appears to give logic to their writings.
Then he starts preaching on Christian doctrine. " If Jesus = the Godhead, then Jesus must have all of these properties. But then Jesus is exactly synonymous with the Godhead."
It's the first time I have heard that Jesus is equal to the Father or that all the persons of the trinity are equal. Of course atheist gulp this down with out even a second thought; after all anything to denicrate God.
Then he admits they are unequal and makes the observation "But that means, if these properties are properties of being God, that neither can be fully God". Why not! He says so!
Once again "Jesus has properties that the others do not have and vice versa. So whatever is claimed of Jesus, he cannot be fully God." CAN NOT! Atheists skim over this without blinking. What makes the writer such an expert on theology?
In summary to turn is final words around) his treatise is logically incoherent. But he can’t admit that because, like all atheists he ain’t got nothin’. And if you look into his believes like many atheists the real reason for his stand is Atonement and Hell.