Broaching the Trinity: Three Persons?

[Thomas]

I think what is rather hard about it is it really does not seem altogether logically coherent.

It may not seem so, but then one has to really look at the terms and definitions to understand it.

In the same way, I'm sure, much of modern cosmology, of relativity, or Quantum Mechanics is logically coherent, but hard to grasp.

 

[rocala]

it really does not seem altogether logically coherent.

Yes, that is one area of struggle. When I was a teenager, I had a boss who was also a preacher. One day we were talking about a UFO case that was in the news. We were both interested, and I was a little surprised that he accepted the report. He said that there was no reason not to believe that "new orders" were being created. I suggested that perhaps we were once a new order. This he rejected totally. He was adamant that no life existed anywhere prior to the Genesis story. He did quote some scripture in support of this.

Infinity is such a long time I find this whole line of thought alien to my way of thinking. Richard Rohr commented on this in one of his videos. He asked about the time between the big bang and biblical stories "did we really think God was doing nothing for billions of years".

 

[muhammad_isa]

Infinity is such a long time I find this whole line of thought alien to my way of thinking. Richard Rohr commented on this in one of his videos. He asked about the time between the big bang and biblical stories "did we really think God was doing nothing for billions of years".

Well, time is relative .. a year to G-d is not as a year to us 'as living it'.
Furthermore, it would only be an assumption, that time would 'tick' in a linear fashion
from beginning to end.

 

[Thomas]

Infinity is such a long time I find this whole line of thought alien to my way of thinking.

Quite. We live in a finite world. That is the basis of our experience.

Richard Rohr commented on this in one of his videos. He asked about the time between the big bang and biblical stories "did we really think God was doing nothing for billions of years".

Ah ... I don't know the context of the question, but there appears to be a logical error there ... the question by itself posits the assumption that there was 'time' before the Big Bang, or before creation. There is not. Both 'time' and 'space' are fundamental to this creation.

 

[Thomas]

Although this video is long, I thought I would post it both here and in the thread about Philosophy and NeoPlatonism.
This particular video is the host (Dan McClellan) responding to someone else's video by providing more information.
I personally found the intricacy of his exploration of the trinity, or the development of the idea over time, to be one of the more powerful and useful ones I have heard to date. Some of the patristic thinking he describes makes it almost comprehensible. I for one appreciate it.

The crux and point of this video is to argue we cannot read 4th century definitions onto 2nd century statements.

I agree.

The development of Christian Trinitarianism is a movement through and then beyond Middle and later Neoplatonism.

Having said that, I am inclined to look at Neoplatonism especially as offering a useful (dare one say providential) means of thinking about Christian Trinitarianism ... or put another way, neither school has said all it has to say, and there is still fruitful grounds for discourse.

+++

In response to McClellan, I'd say: No, Justin is not a 4th century Trinitarian, he's a 2nd century Trinitarian

The term 'trinity' is also 2nd century.

 

[Thomas]

Looking at Dan McClellan, I found this:

And my reaction was, "Oh dear ... Oh, dear me, no, that's really not the case at all ... "

But this seemed better:

At least, in addressing McClellan. Not that I have much to say about Octavio MoSS either ... but OK ... following Octavio's '5 points'

1: Inspiration (around 2 miniutes)
I'd discuss the point as a false either/or argument about what 'God breathed' means, and that McClellan is doing precisely what he says at 2.30: "someone imposing that reading upon the Bible".

2: Bible as univocal ... does any scholar believe that? No.

3: Inerrancy – follows from the above ... not everyone believes in inerrancy.

4: Necessary to take the Bible more seriously? Who's interpretation of the Bible, exactly? i am not sure by his saying 'let the Bible operate on its own terms' means 'as I understand it' ...

5: Jesus is not God – and then McClellan argues from a certain perspective to say that Jesus is not God, on the basis of 'dogma over data', despite, it seems, his insistence on data over dogma.

+++

I watched a brief Octavio MoSS video on why John's Gospel 'contradicts' the Synoptics ... and wasn't satisfied with that, either.

+++

McClellan: Does this debunk the Trinity?
"because the doctrine of the Trinity did not develop as part of a an inductive process of trying to figure out what the scriptures mean the doctrine of the Trinity developed as early Christians were integrating Greek philosophy and their Jewish Christian ideas about monotheism and the philosophical side of things took priority ... "
Wrong ...

McClellan A KJV mistranslation that may have affected your life
I don't think it's a mistranslation, I think it's his misinterpretation ...

McClellan God wasn’t being honest in the Garden of Eden
So God lies?

As in the previous link, I think this is an argument that works, if I may mix my metaphors, by leading the viewer down a garden path, and then turning the tables ... so God was being honest, it's just his being overtly literal.

+++

In short, I tend not to look at YouTube theologians unless I have reason to do so from elsewhere. There's too many of them, too many reflecting parochial issues, too much soundbite over substance ...

+++

On the other hand, if you could watch some of Denys Turner's videos (of lectures) ... and explain them to me, because I've watched "Faith, Reason, & the Eucharist" more than once, and still don't get it ...

+++

In short, I don't look at YouTube theologians unless I have reason to do so from elsewhere. There's too many of them, too many reflecting parochial issues, they're soundbite over substance ...