The Trinity is illogical and irrational.

[Celsus]

The Trinity is illogical and irrational.

If The Son = God and The Father = God and the Spirit = God then The Son = The Father = The Spirit.

Which obviously is not the case since all three interact with each other as separate entities and did different things in the biblical stories.

The Son, The Father and The Spirit can form God together but not each be totally God.

1+1+1 = 3 and not 1.

1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 equals to 1 of course. But that's not what the Christian dogma says.

So is there anyone in here claiming that the Trinity can be explained logically and rationally?

[For_The_Kingdom]

.

There are THREE separate persons that the ONE essence/nature of "God" belongs too. One nature that all THREE share.

It would be three gods if there were three separate natures that each one share, but since it is ONE nature that all three share, that makes it ONE God.

Repeating a claim does not make it true and does not constitute debate.

Kindly show the source of such knowledge beyond opinion and conjecture (ancient or modern).

I can either repeat the same thing, or same the same thing in a different way. But either way, the fact still remains..

[For_The_Kingdom]

[Marco wrote: The Trinity is not synonymous with God]

It is synonymous on one hand; if you are a Trinitarian. If you are a Trinitarian, to believe in "God" is to believe in the "Trinity"...so if someone asks a Trinitarian "Do you believe in the Trinity", that would be synonymous to "Do you believe in God", and vice versa.

Yes, I understand completely what your viewpoint is. It is wrong. The words are not synonymous regardless of whether you are a Trinitarian or a Great Dane.
The Trinity is a descriptive term for the Christian God.

If you are a Jehovah's Witness or Jew, then the concept of the Trinity has no place in Biblical doctrine. If you are a Trinitarian, then the Trinity has a place in Biblical doctrine, according to our interpretation.

Now, you can disagree with the concept, but I don't think you've proven that the concept is logically incoherent.

If we are to examine meaning with any precision, we require to use the right words. You may find it acceptable to say that Jesus is the Trinity but the correct expression is Jesus is God; he is part of the Trinity. Jesus is NOT the Father.

When you use TIME as an analogy for God, then slip into using it as an analogy for the Trinity, you make a mistake.

It isn't a mistake, it is the same exact thing. "Time" has three aspects embedded within it (past, present, future)...and there are three persons embedded in the "Godhead" (The Father, Son, Holy Spirit).

One aspect of time can be distinguished from the other two...and one person of the Trinity (Godhead) can be distinguished from the other two.

It is the same exact concept.

While past time is part of Time and the Father is part of the Trinity - this works.
But make TIME equivalent to GOD and the analogy fails for the whole question is about making three Gods one God, not three Trinities into one Trinity.
The Father is not a part of God, but fully God.

Nooo, the whole question is how can three persons be ONE God. There is ONE "God-nature" that all three share, thus...ONE GOD.

The Trinity comes in to play when we identify the three persons that share this "God-nature"...in the entire realm of reality (which includes both physical and non-physical), there are only three "persons" that share this "God-nature", and we call this nature the "Trinity".

Three Beings, One God-nature (that all three share), thus...One God.

As I keep saying, the Trinity, as defined, is beyond human reason, even yours.

Yet, I understand it.

[marco]

If you are a Jehovah's Witness or Jew, then the concept of the Trinity has no place in Biblical doctrine. If you are a Trinitarian, then the Trinity has a place in Biblical doctrine, according to our interpretation.

This has got nothing to do with the argument about the irrationality of the Trinity. Whether one religiously upholds the concept is irrelevant.

When you use TIME as an analogy for God, then slip into using it as an analogy for the Trinity, you make a mistake.

It isn't a mistake, it is the same exact thing. "Time" has three aspects embedded within it (past, present, future)...and there are three persons embedded in the "Godhead" (The Father, Son, Holy Spirit).

One aspect of time can be distinguished from the other two...and one person of the Trinity (Godhead) can be distinguished from the other two.

It is the same exact concept.

I see. Let me attempt a simpler explanation.

TIME = (past, present, future)
GOD = (Father, Son, Spirit)

These two pictures certainly seem to have equivalence. You are looking at this and (understandably) you think the first parallels the second.

The Past is NOT TIME but one part of time. The past lacks two components.
However The Father IS GOD, lacking no bit of God. He is entirely God.

When you say the past is time you are speaking loosely and you mean the past is an aspect of time. You might say that a year is time but of course a year is just part of what time is.
However, when you say Jesus is God, you do not mean he is one third of God.

Nooo, the whole question is how can three persons be ONE God. There is ONE "God-nature" that all three share, thus...ONE GOD.

But we are trying to see how each person can be God, not how each person can share a divine nature, which is hardly a mystery. Introducing "nature" takes you into a different question.
Mars, Venus and Apollo all shared a divine nature. One divine nature so one God. But this is false, since there were three gods. It should be the same with the Trinity - but mysteriously, it is not.

Yet, I understand it.

You understand your revised, rational version of the Trinity. So do I.

[Fundagelico]

This would seem to show that the Trinity defies ordinary logic. But as I said, one must then examine the analogy to see how appropriate it is. It seems reasonable to me. Go well.

Fair enough, Marco. Thanks for an interesting discussion.

[Fundagelico]

Trinitarian relations are not necessarily reflexive. So the argument that the Trinity is necessarily illogical fails.

Are you really sure about that? I think you might be getting a visit form the inquisition, had you lived in a different time and space. As far as I am aware Trinitarian has always held that Jesus and God is an identity relation. I am open to correction, which denomination is that that taught either Jesus is not God or God is not Jesus?

No, actually I'm not sure about that.

As it happens I think it just possible that the Christian God could exist without the Trinity doctrine being true. The Trinity may be a reasonable inference drawn from biblical data and related theological propositions (why I believe it), but it doesn't appear to be a doctrine explicitly taught by Jesus or the apostles. As a Christian I acknowledge the authority of Scripture above the authority of church creeds and councils (though I would hesitate to disregard the latter outright).

But just for grins, let's say that because of the arguments against theological coherence raised on this board I decide that belief in a triune God is irrational. Now, let's go in a different direction and think upon the possible irrationality of the belief, held by the vast majority of us, that the universe exists as an external reality, i.e., independent of our perceptions of it.

Consider again quantum gravity. Can we explain it? Can we completely explain it? Can we completely explain it without invoking loads of technical jargon? If not, then for consistency's sake anyone who maintains that Trinitarianism is an irrational belief should acknowledge that belief in the physical universe as we currently understand it appears equally irrational. But then it's pretty obvious the universe does exist, despite its unintelligibility in certain aspects. Christians would say the same of God.

[marco]

This would seem to show that the Trinity defies ordinary logic. But as I said, one must then examine the analogy to see how appropriate it is. It seems reasonable to me. Go well.

Fair enough, Marco. Thanks for an interesting discussion.

And thank you for your interesting contributions to a good discussion. I don't blame the Church Fathers for their definitions of this unusual concept, but faith leads into some strange areas, some of them not particularly pleasant, as we see in today's world.

[Bust Nak]

Consider again quantum gravity. Can we explain it? Can we completely explain it? Can we completely explain it without invoking loads of technical jargon?

No, we can't.

If not, then for consistency's sake anyone who maintains that Trinitarianism is an irrational belief should acknowledge that belief in the physical universe as we currently understand it appears equally irrational. But then it's pretty obvious the universe does exist, despite its unintelligibility in certain aspects. Christians would say the same of God.

I would point out that quantum gravity is not fundamentally inexplicable, with enough time, resources and brain power thrown at it, we could one day explain it much like how we explain rainbows or tides. In contrast the Trinity is fundamentally inexplicable, the doctrine explicitly stated that it cannot be understood via rational analysis, that it can only be partially revealed by divine revelation, it is fundamentally beyond rational understanding. I don't think Christians could say the same of the Trinity, as we do with the quantum world.

[marco]

I would point out that quantum gravity is not fundamentally inexplicable, with enough time, resources and brain power thrown at it, we could one day explain it much like how we explain rainbows or tides. In contrast the Trinity is fundamentally inexplicable, the doctrine explicitly stated that it cannot be understood via rational analysis, that it can only be partially revealed by divine revelation, it is fundamentally beyond rational understanding. I don't think Christians could say the same of the Trinity, as we do with the quantum world.

I completely agree. Inexplicable does not mean irrational and as you say we hope one day to have an explanation for what we meet on the edges of science. With the Trinity the problem isn't that it is inexplicable, but that it is offers a contradiction where 3 equals one. This won't get explained, or perhaps it might when we are in paradise.