Excellant points John, The Jesus story would have been much more believable and undeniable on god's behalf had Jesus went up on that cross and simply not died, defeated death, stayed up there on that cross the three days and came down from that cross unharmed and was still living and roaming the earth today, performing his miracles and cleansing filthy souls.
It wasn't considered unusual for anyone in Adam's day to live to 930years, Methuselah 969 years, Jared 962 years, Noah 950 years, Jesus 2000 years? If you want people to believe your story, you just do not simply hide the evidence and then call people a fool for not believing it.
Is the Jesus story the best a god who created the whole universe in just six days can do? Shouldn't a real god have provided better convincing evidence, instead of leaving people's eternal salvation to the auspices of the woefully wicked and sinful humans?
Should we trust a god that chooses to outsource his holy words?
From david’s counter You-Tube post, I now know I CAN BE 100% Christian and 100% Atheist at the same time. There is indeed, no contradiction here except for the “unthinking” theologian.
David’s counter You-Tube post was a typical Protestant response indicated by the phase the narrator used; “…faith one delivered to the saints.”. Even he had to agree with John that Christian theology has some “weird implications” ground in seemly obvious contradictions. It is little wonder no average Christian care to study the weird logics of Christian theology.
The problem is, as John pointed out, Christianity is totally created from the illogical. If this young “theologian” had to sit for the Professional Engineering Exam using the same logic as he portrays in his You-Tube video, he would fail miserably. Plus, one could only imagine the wild and destructive engineering he would do. He would NEVER get Bonded as an engineer!
Even in our legal system, Christianity claims you can be a liar a liar 100% of the time and 100% truthful at the same time!…ONLY IN RELIGION!!!!!! No wonder there is separation between Church and State.
In the end, when Christianity gets itself caught in one illogical lie, it simply tells another illogical lie and then claims both are 100% true! Again, ONLY IN RELIGION!
Please understand people, this was written from my 100% Atheist brain. I hope to counterbalance this in the future with my 100% Christian brain.
Since it is a fact that the Mormon Prophet Joseph Smith’s parents augured constantly over Protestant religion in his household as a young man, plus when we consider the illogical dogma such the Trinity where God is both 100% God and 100% man, it does not take a genius to understand how Joseph Smith though that at one time, God was simply a man who became a God and, for those “Temple Mormons” who live the “Ordnances of the Gospel”, they too can become Gods who have "Spirit Children" with a Temple sealed wife / wives to populate other worlds where they too (male only; sorry) will be worshiped.
The question will always haunt Christianity over their polytheistic dogma they call the “Trinity“.
Just want to clarify again I am not the fellow posting video responses. I just happen to be the fellow who posts his responses here :)
I would like to get some clarification on a couple of things mentioned:
"Each person is not to be considered God, only the whole"
I am unsure of what you are getting at here, because of course the doctrine states that all 3 persons of the Trinity are co-equal and co-eternal.
"God the Father eternally created the Son, and the Holy Spirit." I'm assuming you're referring to the misunderstanding of the KJV rendering of "only begotten" in John 3:16? (τον υιον τον μονογενη) I think the mistranslation regarding monogene has been dealt with elsewhere (James White's The Forgotten Trinity includes a discussion of this).
"This picture seems to indicate exactly what Christians believe about this Trinity now in heaven, there is an embodied God, one-third of this God is embodied in Jesus"
This would contradict the doctrine that Jesus is 100% God. Unless you abandon God being a unified being in His essence. Jesus would only be 33.333333% God..... :)
Anyway just some thoughts. Enjoying the YouTube stuff, it helps me read your blog articles faster because I have a feel for how you talk.
This would contradict the doctrine that Jesus is 100% God. Unless you abandon God being a unified being in His essence. Jesus would only be 33.333333% God..... :)
To be blunt, of course it contradicts the doctrine. Rationality of the doctrine is precisely what's in question here.
You happen to accept the Bible as truth. As such, you think all of the bizarre beliefs it teaches must not really be bizarre because the Bible says they are true. And true things couldn't possibly be bizarre, right?
But if one dares to suspend their belief for a moment, does the trinity not appear bizarre? How can something be 100% God and 100% man? How can something that is 100% God be tempted? At face value, it's just as bizarre as receiving 72 virgins when you die.
So, your definition of what is or is not bizarre is really based on what religion you happen to believe is true. This is in contrast to whether a claim appears to be bizarre, independent of it's source.
Because, to a Muslim, the trinity is bizarre and 72 virgins are not.
If one stops and really thinks about this issue, how is either position rational? If we could go back in time and prove that Jesus was not the son of God, would the trinity suddenly stop making sense and become bizarre since it wasn't true?
Because, even if you believe that the trinity is true, is it not bizarre? To claim otherwise is to show how your faith has conditioned you to accept unusual and strange claims as rational and normal, in some cases, but not others.
Given that there is no other evidence that backs up the idea of the trinity, as compared to the bizarre behavior of matter we observe at the quantum level, it appears that you really have no basis for thinking the trinity is true (and not bizarre) other than your belief that the Bible is true and supports the idea of the trinity.
This is precisely John's point.
To summarize, from your perspective, you don't think the trinity is true dispute being bizarre. You think the trinity is exempt from being bizarre because you believe a doctrine that teaches it is true.
That "God the Father eternally created the Son, and the Holy Spirit" is what is understood by the Nicean Creed and defended philosophically in our era by Richard Swinburne in "Could there be more than one God?" Faith and Philosophy Vo. 5, No. 3, July 1988.
David, just ask yourself if the Father and the Holy Spirit ceased to exist whether or not what you're left with is God. "Fully God," or "participation in the the Godhead" is not the same thing as God. God, for the Christian, is the full trinity.
John said: "God the Father eternally created the Son, and the Holy Spirit" is what is understood by the Nicean Creed"
From The Nicene Creed: We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father.
John said: "if the Father and the Holy Spirit ceased to exist"
Ok your philosophy background is way more extensive than mine but I'll give it a shot :)
Essential and accidental attributes. God is essentially a Trinity of 3 persons. To hypothetically contend something that denies this, you are basically referring to a different being.... So if only the Logos existed, it wouldn't be the same being. God is essentially a Trinity just like I am essentially human. Refuting the existence of a being other than the Christian God would not be applicable, so I guess I'm trying to make sure we're actually talking about the same thing.
Also ceasing to exist is something God essentially can't do, right?
As a theist and born again christian I have to say I enjoy this blog and the information is provides. I am not sure I will ever cross that line of nonbelief, but I am more liberal in my approach to the world and nonbelievers.
David, 100% monotheism and 100% polytheism equals the “Trinity”.
In the context of pagan Greece and Rome, Christianity invented a new formula that combined both the worlds of monotheism and polytheism without a conflicted in faith, but not logic. However, Islam and Judaism clearly see though this smoke screen attempted harmonization which totally has more in common with science fiction than logical reality.
Of course I would disagree and say that the doctrine of the Trinity is wholly monotheistic.
I am also prepared to refute the argument that this doctrine was a result of Hellenistic Jewish thought under the influence of Greek philosophy. If you would like to present more evidence related to this we can discuss.
I think the doctrine is not explicitly taught in Scripture, but easily derived as a composite which basically states there is "one what, and three who's"...or more specifically
1. There is on God (monotheism) 2. God exists as 3 persons 3. All 3 persons are co-equal and co-eternal
#2 is not polytheism, nor is it a contradiction.
#3 is where some have erred in a misunderstanding of how John 1:18, John 3:16, and the Nicene Creed use the word begotten.
On another point David, you cite the Nicene Creed. As most any good professor of Church History will point out, each phase in this creed (or any of the early Christian creeds) was not formulated in prayer by some pious monks and priest, but its aim is to establish religious power by attacking heresy (a highly subjective term!).
In seminary, my professor cited the Nicene Creed phase by phase and then linked it up each phase to the heresy it attacked. This Creed is the way it is today, not by divine revelation, but simply set by bishops who opposed other bishops. All creeds have more in common with politics than religion.
In conclusion, this creed is a by-product of a historical power struggle among Christians who used Neo Platonism to define the “Christ” and attack other Christians to consolidate power.
Good points, and I agree with you for the most part.
Someone else had previously made an assertion about Nicea, so I cited it to clarify what it says in regards to the relationship between the Father and the Son.
who used Neo Platonism to define the “Christ"...
I have studied the relationship between early Christianity and Greek philosophy (1st-2nd century), but I am not as well read on the 3rd-4th century.
Could you cite some works to substantiate the claim that the doctrine of the Trinity made use of Neoplatonism?
Historically it looks as if causation could just as easily be reversed.
"A major factor in this syncretism, and one which had an immense influence on the development of Platonic thought, was the introduction of the Jewish Scriptures into Greek intellectual circles via the translation known as the Septuagint." Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
The acknowledged founder Neoplatonism, Plotinus, trained under a Christian philosopher: Ammonius Saccas in Alexandria, Egypt.
Nicea aside, Clement of Rome and Ignatius wrote some very early letters that demonstrate an early Trinitarian conception....and then of course the Bible itself addresses the issue too :)
Very interesting video and video response. First, I would agree with John that the orthodox view of the trinity and the incarnation is logically absurd. Second, I would agree with the response that John does not state the orthodox doctrine of the trinity in correct terms. The doctrine says there is one God in three persons; each one is God (not 1/3 God)and yet there is only one God. Third, the claim by the responder that all of this is clearly taught in Scripture is false. The Scripture does not teach the doctrine of the Trinity explicity. It is inferred from various statements that on the surface seem to be contradictory, i.e. The Father is God; the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God and yet there is only one God.
As any student of history knows, the church struggled with these propositions of Scripture and explained them in a multitude of ways. For example, some said that the Father is truly God and that the Son is a created being and divine but not eternal as the Father is. Others said that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three different manifestations of the same person. Others rejected the personality of the Spirit and said that it was the power of God, etc. but not a person.
In other words, all kinds of explanations surfaced attempting to explain these apparently contradictory statements in the Bible. These issues were settled for the Church by the councils and the creeds and thus "orthodox" Trinity doctrine was born. Of course, not everyone accepted the proclamations of the councils and creeds and so competing beliefs have surfaced from time to time through history.
The bottom line is that the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity is an attempt by humans to reconcile contradictory propositions in the Bible.
I agree ultimately with John that this belief is absurd. However, as we all know, otherwise smart people will believe all types of nonsense in the name of religion.
Thanks FF. Where is there somewhere in the NT or the creeds that we read "Jesus is God?" I don't think you'll find it, but I could be wrong. Jesus is regarded as begotten, the Son of God, or of the divine nature and so on. The Father seems to be the exception, probably because Jesus thought of him as God. I think the reason for this is because to say they are each individually God and also that the whole Trinity is God leads to absurdities. The word God cannot be applied exclusively to Jesus and then also have that word applied to the whole Trinity. I myself refrained from saying Jesus is God when a Christian.
I believe that John 1:1 states that the Logos is God and that then 1:14 says that the Logos was incarnated. Of course the Arians dispute this.
The doctrine of the deity of Christ is largely built on inference from statements in Scripture that the Son has authority or power that only belongs to God; thus he must be God.
The fact remains that the Orthodox doctrine of the trinity maintains that Jesus is very god of very god and thus co-equal and co-eternal with the FAther. This is man's attempt to reconcile apparently contradictory statements in the Bible about there only being one God and yet the Father and Son both being God.
In my opinion, its a case of mental gymnastics. People start with the assumption that the Bible is infallible and then they are forced to reconcile the contradictions.
No honest Christian who understands the issues involved will claim to understand the Trinity. I think it was Augustine who said: "He who would understand the Trinity will lose his mind but he who denies the Trinity will lose his soul."
Hello Harry: You mentioned "...100% Atheist brain..."
File this in the for what it may be worth category. Since A-theism is a lack of something, theistic belief, it is negatively defined. Lacking positive affirmations of attributes, A-theism cannot be validly predicated to be any particular thing. Indeed, a-theism is just one philosophical stance in response to one propositional query. Does a theistic god exist? The answer is, of course, no.
For me this is not enough. I have a need for a coherent philosophy by which to structure my life. For that reason, I no longer call myself an a-theist, although I am an a-theist. Instead and because I have adopted philosophies from Richard Carrier's book "Sense and Goodness Without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism" and from Ayn Rand's Objectivism, I call myself a metaphysical naturalist and a neo-objectivist.
These coherent philosophical positions are superior to all others and adhere strictly to logic, proper reasoning, and objective morality. Arguments from MN and O kick lesser philosophy's metaphysical arses.
David stated: "I am also prepared to refute the argument that this doctrine was a result of Hellenistic Jewish thought under the influence of Greek philosophy. If you would like to present more evidence related to this we can discuss."
David, I would ask you to look up the word “logos” in A Greek - English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature and simply compare the use of “logos” in Classical uses in the Oxford Classical Greek Lexicon and you will notice how the philosophical use in the Classical period as used by Plato and the Greek philosophers finds it way into Christian thought by comparing these two lexicons.. The expanse in the Classical Greek Lexicon covers pp. 1057 - 1059 with most of its references given to it use in Greek philosophical thought predating Christianity itself.
Fact is that in A Greek - English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, the word logos, as used in the Gospel of John, is listed a the third and final late use of the word in the New Testament which means it was late in it usage by the New Testament authors. (A Greek - English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 2 ed., 1979 , The University of Chicago Press; pp.477 - 479).
Finally compare this with it’s uses in A Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford University Press, 1968) an you’ll find it is now in common philosophical usage in Christian theological thinking which shaped the creeds. Once the divine logos is established in Platonic philosophical thought, the Church Fathers used this concept to justify the Christ (Jesus) in the Greek philosophical tradition (notice the new expanded use of the Christ as the eternal divine logos (this use among the Church Fathers now covers pp. 807 - 811 or four finely written double columns in this Patristic Greek Lexicon).
Another good source here is The Oxford Classical Dictionary, 3 ed, 1996 were the word logos is defined on pp. 882 - 883. The article ends with “ The idea in St. John’s Gospel of the incarnation of the logos in Christ is no doubt in part a similar reworking and recombination of such older ideas in a new context.” p.882
Finally, a great discussion is given by J.N.D. Kelly in Early Christian Doctrines 2 ed, Harper and Row 1976. His chapters in the second section “The Pre-Nicene Theology” pp. 83 - 183 is very informative in how the Church used Greek philosophy to define the Christ.
Watching that video helped make sense of at least one thing, if any of those "Trinitarian" views you demolished reflected your belief as a Christian, well...you're as good of an atheist as you were a Christian:
If Loftus were the embodiment of a Christian heresy, it would be Modalism. Your previous mode of being was "Christian"...your second mode "Atheist"...your metaphysical essence remaining the same for each mode: Asinine.
Others have already pointed out how you just bravely swashbuckled strawmen...I wouldn't blame your failure on time constraints either. Further development of a fallacy just makes you look worse, not better.
Harry said you will notice how the philosophical use in the Classical period as used by Plato and the Greek philosophers finds it way into Christian thought by comparing these two lexicons
I think its important to stress that you can't see how words are used in Christian thought unless you examine the context they are placed in. Lexical analysis doesn't always reveal this.
I agree with you that John is writing to a Greek audience, and imports a commonly used Greek word to express his idea.
But mind you logos is a very widely used term with many definitions and usages...If I say "thats cool" you wouldn't accuse me of borrowing from 60's hippy philosophy would you? (I barely remember the 80's).
Words are not static, and John's usage of logos is clearly not importing the entire semantic range....the logos became flesh!? Its exactly that kind of talk that got Paul in so many debates with the Greek philosophers of his day.
Early church fathers were definitely studying Greek philosophy and tried to make sense of logos in this light. Only upon more recent scholarly examination have many concluded that this reference may also draw from the OT usage of the "Word of God."
In summary I agree that logos is a word with a vast usage found in many places including the Bible and Greek philosophy. How the word is used in a particular context should be considered when understanding the meaning.
24 comments:
Another video response:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tkv3Ud8-fB4
By the way I'm not ShadowCLB...
Excellant points John, The Jesus story would have been much more believable and undeniable on god's behalf had Jesus went up on that cross and simply not died, defeated death, stayed up there on that cross the three days and came down from that cross unharmed and was still living and roaming the earth today, performing his miracles and cleansing filthy souls.
It wasn't considered unusual for anyone in Adam's day to live to 930years, Methuselah 969 years, Jared 962 years, Noah 950 years, Jesus 2000 years? If you want people to believe your story, you just do not simply hide the evidence and then call people a fool for not believing it.
Is the Jesus story the best a god who created the whole universe in just six days can do? Shouldn't a real god have provided better convincing evidence, instead of leaving people's eternal salvation to the auspices of the woefully wicked and sinful humans?
Should we trust a god that chooses to outsource his holy words?
outsource his holy words?
Now thats funny!
From david’s counter You-Tube post, I now know I CAN BE 100% Christian and 100% Atheist at the same time. There is indeed, no contradiction here except for the “unthinking” theologian.
David’s counter You-Tube post was a typical Protestant response indicated by the phase the narrator used; “…faith one delivered to the saints.”. Even he had to agree with John that Christian theology has some “weird implications” ground in seemly obvious contradictions. It is little wonder no average Christian care to study the weird logics of Christian theology.
The problem is, as John pointed out, Christianity is totally created from the illogical. If this young “theologian” had to sit for the Professional Engineering Exam using the same logic as he portrays in his You-Tube video, he would fail miserably. Plus, one could only imagine the wild and destructive engineering he would do. He would NEVER get Bonded as an engineer!
Even in our legal system, Christianity claims you can be a liar a liar 100% of the time and 100% truthful at the same time!…ONLY IN RELIGION!!!!!! No wonder there is separation between Church and State.
In the end, when Christianity gets itself caught in one illogical lie, it simply tells another illogical lie and then claims both are 100% true! Again, ONLY IN RELIGION!
Please understand people, this was written from my 100% Atheist brain. I hope to counterbalance this in the future with my 100% Christian brain.
Since it is a fact that the Mormon Prophet Joseph Smith’s parents augured constantly over Protestant religion in his household as a young man, plus when we consider the illogical dogma such the Trinity where God is both 100% God and 100% man, it does not take a genius to understand how Joseph Smith though that at one time, God was simply a man who became a God and, for those “Temple Mormons” who live the “Ordnances of the Gospel”, they too can become Gods who have "Spirit Children" with a Temple sealed wife / wives to populate other worlds where they too (male only; sorry) will be worshiped.
The question will always haunt Christianity over their polytheistic dogma they call the “Trinity“.
Just want to clarify again I am not the fellow posting video responses. I just happen to be the fellow who posts his responses here :)
I would like to get some clarification on a couple of things mentioned:
"Each person is not to be considered God, only the whole"
I am unsure of what you are getting at here, because of course the doctrine states that all 3 persons of the Trinity are co-equal and co-eternal.
"God the Father eternally created the Son, and the Holy Spirit."
I'm assuming you're referring to the misunderstanding of the KJV rendering of "only begotten" in John 3:16? (τον υιον τον μονογενη)
I think the mistranslation regarding monogene has been dealt with elsewhere (James White's The Forgotten Trinity includes a discussion of this).
"This picture seems to indicate exactly what Christians believe about this Trinity now in heaven, there is an embodied God, one-third of this God is embodied in Jesus"
This would contradict the doctrine that Jesus is 100% God. Unless you abandon God being a unified being in His essence. Jesus would only be 33.333333% God..... :)
Anyway just some thoughts. Enjoying the YouTube stuff, it helps me read your blog articles faster because I have a feel for how you talk.
This would contradict the doctrine that Jesus is 100% God. Unless you abandon God being a unified being in His essence. Jesus would only be 33.333333% God..... :)
To be blunt, of course it contradicts the doctrine. Rationality of the doctrine is precisely what's in question here.
You happen to accept the Bible as truth. As such, you think all of the bizarre beliefs it teaches must not really be bizarre because the Bible says they are true. And true things couldn't possibly be bizarre, right?
But if one dares to suspend their belief for a moment, does the trinity not appear bizarre? How can something be 100% God and 100% man? How can something that is 100% God be tempted? At face value, it's just as bizarre as receiving 72 virgins when you die.
So, your definition of what is or is not bizarre is really based on what religion you happen to believe is true. This is in contrast to whether a claim appears to be bizarre, independent of it's source.
Because, to a Muslim, the trinity is bizarre and 72 virgins are not.
If one stops and really thinks about this issue, how is either position rational? If we could go back in time and prove that Jesus was not the son of God, would the trinity suddenly stop making sense and become bizarre since it wasn't true?
Because, even if you believe that the trinity is true, is it not bizarre? To claim otherwise is to show how your faith has conditioned you to accept unusual and strange claims as rational and normal, in some cases, but not others.
Given that there is no other evidence that backs up the idea of the trinity, as compared to the bizarre behavior of matter we observe at the quantum level, it appears that you really have no basis for thinking the trinity is true (and not bizarre) other than your belief that the Bible is true and supports the idea of the trinity.
This is precisely John's point.
To summarize, from your perspective, you don't think the trinity is true dispute being bizarre. You think the trinity is exempt from being bizarre because you believe a doctrine that teaches it is true.
David,
That "God the Father eternally created the Son, and the Holy Spirit" is what is understood by the Nicean Creed and defended philosophically in our era by Richard Swinburne in "Could there be more than one God?" Faith and Philosophy Vo. 5, No. 3, July 1988.
David, just ask yourself if the Father and the Holy Spirit ceased to exist whether or not what you're left with is God. "Fully God," or "participation in the the Godhead" is not the same thing as God. God, for the Christian, is the full trinity.
John said:
"God the Father eternally created the Son, and the Holy Spirit" is what is understood by the Nicean Creed"
From The Nicene Creed:
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father.
John said:
"if the Father and the Holy Spirit ceased to exist"
Ok your philosophy background is way more extensive than mine but I'll give it a shot :)
Essential and accidental attributes. God is essentially a Trinity of 3 persons. To hypothetically contend something that denies this, you are basically referring to a different being.... So if only the Logos existed, it wouldn't be the same being. God is essentially a Trinity just like I am essentially human. Refuting the existence of a being other than the Christian God would not be applicable, so I guess I'm trying to make sure we're actually talking about the same thing.
Also ceasing to exist is something God essentially can't do, right?
As a theist and born again christian I have to say I enjoy this blog and the information is provides. I am not sure I will ever cross that line of nonbelief, but I am more liberal in my approach to the world and nonbelievers.
David, 100% monotheism and 100% polytheism equals the “Trinity”.
In the context of pagan Greece and Rome, Christianity invented a new formula that combined both the worlds of monotheism and polytheism without a conflicted in faith, but not logic. However, Islam and Judaism clearly see though this smoke screen attempted harmonization which totally has more in common with science fiction than logical reality.
Harry,
Of course I would disagree and say that the doctrine of the Trinity is wholly monotheistic.
I am also prepared to refute the argument that this doctrine was a result of Hellenistic Jewish thought under the influence of Greek philosophy. If you would like to present more evidence related to this we can discuss.
I think the doctrine is not explicitly taught in Scripture, but easily derived as a composite which basically states
there is "one what, and three who's"...or more specifically
1. There is on God (monotheism)
2. God exists as 3 persons
3. All 3 persons are co-equal and co-eternal
#2 is not polytheism, nor is it a contradiction.
#3 is where some have erred in a misunderstanding of how John 1:18, John 3:16, and the Nicene Creed use the word begotten.
On another point David, you cite the Nicene Creed. As most any good professor of Church History will point out, each phase in this creed (or any of the early Christian creeds) was not formulated in prayer by some pious monks and priest, but its aim is to establish religious power by attacking heresy (a highly subjective term!).
In seminary, my professor cited the Nicene Creed phase by phase and then linked it up each phase to the heresy it attacked. This Creed is the way it is today, not by divine revelation, but simply set by bishops who opposed other bishops. All creeds have more in common with politics than religion.
In conclusion, this creed is a by-product of a historical power struggle among Christians who used Neo Platonism to define the “Christ” and attack other Christians to consolidate power.
Harry,
Good points, and I agree with you for the most part.
Someone else had previously made an assertion about Nicea, so I cited it to clarify what it says in regards to the relationship between the Father and the Son.
who used Neo Platonism to define the “Christ"...
I have studied the relationship between early Christianity and Greek philosophy (1st-2nd century), but I am not as well read on the 3rd-4th century.
Could you cite some works to substantiate the claim that the doctrine of the Trinity made use of Neoplatonism?
Historically it looks as if causation could just as easily be reversed.
"A major factor in this syncretism, and one which had an immense influence on the development of Platonic thought, was the introduction of the Jewish Scriptures into Greek intellectual circles via the translation known as the Septuagint."
Internet Encyclopedia of
Philosophy
The acknowledged founder Neoplatonism, Plotinus, trained under a Christian philosopher: Ammonius Saccas in Alexandria, Egypt.
Nicea aside, Clement of Rome and Ignatius wrote some very early letters that demonstrate an early
Trinitarian conception....and then of course the Bible itself addresses the issue too :)
Very interesting video and video response. First, I would agree with John that the orthodox view of the trinity and the incarnation is logically absurd. Second, I would agree with the response that John does not state the orthodox doctrine of the trinity in correct terms. The doctrine says there is one God in three persons; each one is God (not 1/3 God)and yet there is only one God. Third, the claim by the responder that all of this is clearly taught in Scripture is false. The Scripture does not teach the doctrine of the Trinity explicity. It is inferred from various statements that on the surface seem to be contradictory, i.e. The Father is God; the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God and yet there is only one God.
As any student of history knows, the church struggled with these propositions of Scripture and explained them in a multitude of ways. For example, some said that the Father is truly God and that the Son is a created being and divine but not eternal as the Father is. Others said that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three different manifestations of the same person. Others rejected the personality of the Spirit and said that it was the power of God, etc. but not a person.
In other words, all kinds of explanations surfaced attempting to explain these apparently contradictory statements in the Bible. These issues were settled for the Church by the councils and the creeds and thus "orthodox" Trinity doctrine was born. Of course, not everyone accepted the proclamations of the councils and creeds and so competing beliefs have surfaced from time to time through history.
The bottom line is that the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity is an attempt by humans to reconcile contradictory propositions in the Bible.
I agree ultimately with John that this belief is absurd. However, as we all know, otherwise smart people will believe all types of nonsense in the name of religion.
Thanks FF. Where is there somewhere in the NT or the creeds that we read "Jesus is God?" I don't think you'll find it, but I could be wrong. Jesus is regarded as begotten, the Son of God, or of the divine nature and so on. The Father seems to be the exception, probably because Jesus thought of him as God. I think the reason for this is because to say they are each individually God and also that the whole Trinity is God leads to absurdities. The word God cannot be applied exclusively to Jesus and then also have that word applied to the whole Trinity. I myself refrained from saying Jesus is God when a Christian.
John,
I believe that John 1:1 states that the Logos is God and that then 1:14 says that the Logos was incarnated. Of course the Arians dispute this.
The doctrine of the deity of Christ is largely built on inference from statements in Scripture that the Son has authority or power that only belongs to God; thus he must be God.
The fact remains that the Orthodox doctrine of the trinity maintains that Jesus is very god of very god and thus co-equal and co-eternal with the FAther. This is man's attempt to reconcile apparently contradictory statements in the Bible about there only being one God and yet the Father and Son both being God.
In my opinion, its a case of mental gymnastics. People start with the assumption that the Bible is infallible and then they are forced to reconcile the contradictions.
No honest Christian who understands the issues involved will claim to understand the Trinity. I think it was Augustine who said: "He who would understand the Trinity will lose his mind but he who denies the Trinity will lose his soul."
Hello Harry: You mentioned "...100% Atheist brain..."
File this in the for what it may be worth category. Since A-theism is a lack of something, theistic belief, it is negatively defined. Lacking positive affirmations of attributes, A-theism cannot be validly predicated to be any particular thing. Indeed, a-theism is just one philosophical stance in response to one propositional query. Does a theistic god exist? The answer is, of course, no.
For me this is not enough. I have a need for a coherent philosophy by which to structure my life. For that reason, I no longer call myself an a-theist, although I am an a-theist. Instead and because I have adopted philosophies from Richard Carrier's book "Sense and Goodness Without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism" and from Ayn Rand's Objectivism, I call myself a metaphysical naturalist and a neo-objectivist.
These coherent philosophical positions are superior to all others and adhere strictly to logic, proper reasoning, and objective morality. Arguments from MN and O kick lesser philosophy's metaphysical arses.
David stated: "I am also prepared to refute the argument that this doctrine was a result of Hellenistic Jewish thought under the influence of Greek philosophy. If you would like to present more evidence related to this we can discuss."
David, I would ask you to look up the word “logos” in A Greek - English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature and simply compare the use of “logos” in Classical uses in the Oxford Classical Greek Lexicon and you will notice how the philosophical use in the Classical period as used by Plato and the Greek philosophers finds it way into Christian thought by comparing these two lexicons.. The expanse in the Classical Greek Lexicon covers pp. 1057 - 1059 with most of its references given to it use in Greek philosophical thought predating Christianity itself.
Fact is that in A Greek - English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, the word logos, as used in the Gospel of John, is listed a the third and final late use of the word in the New Testament which means it was late in it usage by the New Testament authors. (A Greek - English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 2 ed., 1979 , The University of Chicago Press; pp.477 - 479).
Finally compare this with it’s uses in A Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford University Press, 1968) an you’ll find it is now in common philosophical usage in Christian theological thinking which shaped the creeds.
Once the divine logos is established in Platonic philosophical thought, the Church Fathers used this concept to justify the Christ (Jesus) in the Greek philosophical tradition (notice the new expanded use of the Christ as the eternal divine logos (this use among the Church Fathers now covers pp. 807 - 811 or four finely written double columns in this Patristic Greek Lexicon).
Another good source here is The Oxford Classical Dictionary, 3 ed, 1996 were the word logos is defined on pp. 882 - 883. The article ends with “ The idea in St. John’s Gospel of the incarnation of the logos in Christ is no doubt in part a similar reworking and recombination of such older ideas in a new context.” p.882
Finally, a great discussion is given by J.N.D. Kelly in Early Christian Doctrines 2 ed, Harper and Row 1976. His chapters in the second section “The Pre-Nicene Theology” pp. 83 - 183 is very informative in how the Church used Greek philosophy to define the Christ.
I hope this helps you understand my position.
Watching that video helped make sense of at least one thing, if any of those "Trinitarian" views you demolished reflected your belief as a Christian, well...you're as good of an atheist as you were a Christian:
If Loftus were the embodiment of a Christian heresy, it would be Modalism. Your previous mode of being was "Christian"...your second mode "Atheist"...your metaphysical essence remaining the same for each mode: Asinine.
Others have already pointed out how you just bravely swashbuckled strawmen...I wouldn't blame your failure on time constraints either. Further development of a fallacy just makes you look worse, not better.
Harry said
you will notice how the philosophical use in the Classical period as used by Plato and the Greek philosophers finds it way into Christian thought by comparing these two lexicons
I think its important to stress that you can't see how words are used in Christian thought unless you examine the context they are placed in. Lexical analysis doesn't always reveal this.
I agree with you that John is writing to a Greek audience, and imports a commonly used Greek word to express his idea.
But mind you logos is a very widely used term with many definitions and usages...If I say "thats cool" you wouldn't accuse me of borrowing from 60's hippy philosophy would you? (I barely remember the 80's).
Words are not static, and John's usage of logos is clearly not importing the entire semantic range....the logos became flesh!? Its exactly that kind of talk that got Paul in so many debates with the Greek philosophers of his day.
Early church fathers were definitely studying Greek philosophy and tried to make sense of logos in this light. Only upon more recent scholarly examination have many concluded that this reference may also draw from the OT usage of the "Word of God."
In summary I agree that logos is a word with a vast usage found in many places including the Bible and Greek philosophy. How the word is used in a particular context should be considered when understanding the meaning.
Sorry I'm addicted to these wordles...I pasted the entire text of this blog post (including comments) into it.
http://wordle.net/gallery/Loftus_Trinity_Forgotten
Post a Comment