That the first Christians did not make use of the Trinity is not an argument demonstrating the illogical nature of the Trinity; instead, it's the beginning of a solid argument as to why a Christian need not necessarily accept or make use of the Trinity.
That the concept of the Trinity is illogical is no strike against the Trinity: if the Trinity were presented as a logically coherent concept, it would lose it's meaning.
I think I can see the points you are making--taking my 'reading' is correct--and appreciate the response. While of course it may well end up being a matter of difference of opinion that need not be pursued beyond any level of just having been a position well presented, I will respond in a attempt to do that.
I fully agree with the highlighted point, yet only reason that it can be taken a bit further. In that as far as it can be determined, given the Jewish religious mind set, based on texts of the time, the earliest Christian had no need for substance definitions--as one would find in Greco-philosophical terms--for YHWH. The faith which especially the Pauline theology pushes, is one based on the former texts of the Jewish relgio-cultural world, is focused on Yeshua as the messiah, and simply a break from Mosaic Law--and thus the description/prescription of YHWH is fixed enough. Therefore, I reason that by application of the 'if it's not broken, don't fix it' principle, trying to fix the sufficient description/prescription of YWHW is an illogical thing.
Also, I see this point as a good point--as you have mentioned, to use the concept for a focus of meditation, is a valid usage, I would agree. I would not, nevertheless, agree to the statement (trinity statement content) as having factuality or logicality--as you also seem to agree to.
Now, I am trying to follow the dialog which you, Didymos Thomas, are having with Fido, but am having a little trouble understanding a few points. It may well be due to that exchange having started sometime before my ever having posted on this thread, and in that case, may not be worth an effort to input, or to help reconcile? maybe? I'll try to follow.
Growing up as a Christian, I thought God could do anything, including the logically impossible. Once I became a competent philosopher I concluded, as I think most would, that God cannot make square circles. Further, I don't think it is just philosophers who've realized this, but most Christians as well. But isn't the idea of the Holy Trinity, the idea that God is both WHOLLY one and WHOLLY separate, logically impossible? Yet most Christians believe in this, and I personally have not come up with a satisfactory answer for myself. Any thoughts?:perplexed:
Do you think it was meant for humans to be able to comprehend such thing?
And furthermore, I do not think it's a contradiction after all. "3 persons in one God" is not the same as "3 Gods in one God". The problem here is the comprehension of the nature of God existence itself, not the the logical impossibility of it.
You can't intelligibly talk about God...you can talk about theology... But people in every sense trying to define infinites only make themselves look stupid... Look about you... As the Greeks called the dome of the heavens the firmament, the result of power; look at it all and consider all beyond the sight of mankind...If God made all this then certainly God is greater, and more than all... As a guess...We want God small, and we want God to care because what ever life is, without the love of it, without the love of the cause of it, then all is dispare...We know we will die... We know someday all of humanity will die...If the earth does not fall into the sun, then the sun will expand to fry the earth to a cinder.... We think without God it is all so pointless, and without meaning... So what??? Have we not the courage to live without meaning??? What would be the point of being mancubs without courage??? Why not say, if there is no God, at least no God as we can sense, with personality, then why don't we behave as God and realize our own power to do Good, even without reason, and even if it is all futility????
I half completely disagree and half completely agree. If there is no God, then our lives would still having meaning. We should still act with courage and lead the best lives possible. Furthermore, I think that when Christians live ONLY for heaven, then they are really doing a disservice to themselves.
But as for grasping infinity, I disagree. I think people are too quick to say "God is far greater than us and thus transcends our logic, so we should just accept that we can't understand him". I don't think people should underestimate the capacity of the human mind. I personally can wrap my mind around some pretty deep stuff when it comes to thinking about God (though I am completely lost when it comes to theoretical physics). Though it is plausible that God created us without the capacity to fully understand him, isn't it not equally plausible that he created us with that ability? Does God have to transcend our logic to be "God"?
It should be noted that being Christian does not mean accepting the doctrine of the Trinity. In fact Unitarian Christians reject the Trinity as to Muslims. Yet both accept Jesus as the Messiah.