Perry,
I hope all is well with you and your wife. Sharon says “hi”.
Hello and God bless you to Sharon!
It seems to me that what you’ve done in points 1 and 2 is separate life into two categories. In one category we have that which is mortal, and requires respiration for survival. In the other we have that which is immortal and does not. With this framework it’s possible to define death as “deprived of respiration.” But since God doesn’t require respiration in the first place, and since it is self evident that God is not dead, we must, by this reasoning, conclude that life and death are not opposites.
"Not requiring" respiration is a lot different than "deprived of" respiration don't you think?
It occurs to me that we have several accounts of God’s breath in scripture. Most of them are probably anthropomorphic in nature. However, Genesis 2:7 seems particularly germane.
Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul
I don't think that God litterally breathes because that requires lungs. Since God doesn't have a physical body, (in and of Himself) He doesn't have lungs. (Jn 4:24 w/Lk 24:39).
Notice also that God does not give the "breath of life" to non-rational creatures, even though they breath oxygen.
Also, I gather from your quote in Webster, and from other comments, that you believe that man is in possession of an immortal soul. ...
I am an annihilationist. God alone posseses immortality (1 Tim 6:15-16) and only those that are "in Him" have it (1 Jn. 5:11).
I didn't mean to give the impression that I thought otherwise by quoting Webster.
You surprised me. I didn’t expect this approach, which is the same direction that Paidion went. As I told him, I don’t think this is allowed in classic trinitarianism, but admit that I could be wrong.
As far as I know, I'm not a classical trinitarian, in that I reject the notion that Jesus is "eternally begotten" and "eternally the son" because those are both contradictions in terms as far as I can tell. (That's not to say I don't think He's eternal.)
To be honest, I am really not all that interested in being "orthodox" or "classical" or any such thing. I believe in the trinity doctrine, (or at least some form of it), because it makes the most sense of scripture. If you can show otherwise from scripture, I'll gladly change my opinion. It's not like I adhere to some "statement of faith" that I need to line up with!
You suggest multiple uses for the word “God”. One usage says that it is okay to apply the word to any “Person” of the trinity. Hence, Jesus is God, the Father is God, the Holy Spirit is God. Another usage is to apply it to the trinity as a whole, (Axiom 0), and that we need to be careful not to confuse these two usages.
First of all, I think I did more than "suggest" it. I gave examples from the Bible.
If you wish to distinguish between them, you can say God the Son, God the Father, God the Holy Spirit and God the trinity. It doesn't bother me. It means no more than what I've been saying. God is three in one sense and one in another. However, I don't know why that would be necessary for the purposes of our discussion.
Calling them "persons" is not simply a "dodge" to avoid a logical inconsistency. It is necessary to make sense of scripture. If there is not logical inconstency (with calling them persons), and it's the only way, (or the best way), to make sense of the biblical data, then there is no reason to reject it.
There is nothing logically wrong with saying that God is "one" in one sense, and "three" in another. I may not fully comprehend how that can be, but it's not illogical.
Take time for instance. There is one "time". Yet time includes the past, the present and the future. The whole can be called time, as well as any of its three divisions. The future is not the past. Nor is the present the future, etc., yet they are all "time". Same for matter (liquid, solid, gas) and space (height, width, depth). Of course, these analogies break down at some point, as all analogies do. But perhaps you see my point.
a) Jesus is a person.
b) The Father is a person.
c) The Holy Spirit is a person.
d) God is three persons.
e) Jesus is God.
f) Jesus is three persons, by d and e.
Rather:
0) There is one God (Is. 44:6)
a) Jesus is a person.
b) The Father is a person.
c) The Holy Spirit is a person.
d) God is three persons (the Father, Son, Holy Spirit)
e) Jesus is God
f) Jesus is God the Son (one of the three persons)
There is nothing illogical in this deduction that is obvious to me.
I believe your answer would be, “It’s a semantic difference that is necessary in order to avoid a logical inconsistency.” “The trinity is one God in three persons, each of whom are God as long as we understand that we’re using 'God' in two different ways here."
That wouldn't be my answer. If the difference were only semantic, then there wouldn't be a difference at all!
I do not think that God is being used in different ways in as far as changing its meaning. Only it's application, or the "sense" in which it's used. I just think that it can be applied to any person in the trinity, or to them all (and I gave biblical examples). I am using the word "God" the way that scripture does.
So to avoid a logical inconsistency we introduce a semantic one??? I would say that if we’re forced to redefine the terms of our statement before we even finish making it, then we’re not really presenting a logical case. You may object to this point, but, if I’m allowed to redefine my terms before even finishing the statement, then I can make any statement at all and claim that it is logical.
I agree. I don't think that I'm introducing a semantic difficulty at all. What terms am I redefining? I have not redifined "God" that I am aware of. If I call the past "time" am I redifining "time"? When I call the future "time" does it take on a different meaning than when used of the past? Yet another when applied to the past, present and future?
Your interpretation of John 1:1-2 sounds surprisingly like what the JW’s say… big GOD the Trinity, and little god the persons of it. While the JW’s insert the word “a” in front of one of the words for “God”, what you’re inserting is a rather hidden usage of the word “God” itself.
I'm not sure I am following you here. I think that Paidion's interpretation, (which is different than mine) sounds closer to the JW's.
I think that "The Word is God" in just the same way that the Father is ("big God"). I just think that He's distinct from the Father. This is why John says that He was "with" God.
I'm not sure which usage you think is "hidden" in my interpretation.
That the Father is in mind in the first usage, is not unusual, as "the Father" and "God" are frequently used interchangably. Indeed, even in this context (1:18).
That the last usage is "God the Son" is shown by the fact that John says He was "with God", showing Him to be distinct from what is meant by the first usage. What else could it mean? It's not like the bible doesn't call Jesus God. In fact, it does many times. Sometimes more outright than others. But it does call Him that.
It's as if John is seeking to show that Jesus has always existed (in the beginning), that He was with God, showing Him to be distict from the Father, but to show that He is not less than God, or a "little God" as you put it, He goes on to say that He is God as well.
I am aware that the definite article is used the first time, and some make a big deal out of the fact that it's not there the third time. (God was the Word). However, opinions differ among scholars as to its implications in this verse. Since I am basically at the mercy of the scholars when it comes to Greek, I see no great need to place a lot of emphasis on the lack of the article in reference to Jesus.
Whether or not your interpretation is valid, it’s not trinitarianism as I understand it.
What is trinitarism as you understand it? So far you have expressed it in things like "3=1". This is not trinitarianism. Perhaps if you lay out just what it is that you think trinitarianism is, we can come closer to a ressolution.
Point 5.
In the interest of keeping things manageable for both of us, I’ll postpone comment on point 5 for now, except to say that I don’t think we’re very far apart here.
Good to know.
I must say, I don't think we are coming any closer to proving that trinitarianism is illogical. I really don't think that it can be done. The best way to discuss it is by looking at the relevant scriptures. Not that this isn't fun and all!
God bless you brother!