Nobody Dies for a Lie

[Mountain Man]

Have you addressed Littlejoe's treaty analogy yet? How it is possible to have three separate and distinct documents, yet they are all one and the same treaty? This is something that actually exists here in the physical world. Are you still going to insist that it is logically impossible?

[Cow Poke]

Like the old joke about a man preparing a speech, and in his notes he writes, "Weak point. Yell louder."

EGGzackly!

[carpedm9587]

Have you addressed Littlejoe's treaty analogy yet? How it is possible to have three separate and distinct documents, yet they are all one and the same treaty? This is something that actually exists here in the physical world. Are you still going to insist that it is logically impossible?

OK, I've read this. So the argument is that three translations of a treaty are "one thing?" No - they are three distinct translations of the same treaty. And there could be four, five, six, etc. There are as many possible translations as there are languages. This is essentially no different than 58 copies of the same treaty in the same language. They are copies. The fact that the language is different does not keep them from being "copies." Somehow, I doubt that the Christian position is that father/son/spirit are "copies" of each other - just in a different language.

[Cow Poke]

OK, I've read this. So the argument is that three translations of a treaty are "one thing?" No - they are three distinct translations of the same treaty. And there could be four, five, six, etc. There are as many possible translations as there are languages. This is essentially no different than 58 copies of the same treaty in the same language. They are copies. The fact that the language is different does not keep them from being "copies." Somehow, I doubt that the Christian position is that father/son/spirit are "copies" of each other - just in a different language.

What you're apparently missing in the analogy is that these are not just 'copies' - they are actual signed and executed documents that make up the actual treaty. They are originals, not copies.

...Every one of the these three treaties is fully the treaty, they are not just copies of the treaty...

[carpedm9587]

What you're apparently missing in the analogy is that these are not just 'copies' - they are actual signed and executed documents that make up the actual treaty. They are originals, not copies.

No - I am not missing this at all. My wife and I executed a living will. They made four copies and we signed each copy - because a signed copy was required for the various agencies receiving it. The wills were identical in every respect, except the signature. And that only because there was a legal requirement for "original signed" documentation. Conceptually they represented the same will. Physically, they were distinct documents.

Unless you want to make the case that father, son, and spirit are "identical" except for a difference in language and signature...this analogy pretty much fails. Jesus apparently refers god as "my father." Who on earth knows what the "spirit" is. Yet despite these three distinctly different "persons," we have one god.

Sorry, but the whole trinity thing is a pretty desperate attempt to maintain a monotheism in the face of a proposed god-man with two known references to "other gods." You have to stand on one leg, curl your other leg behind your back, squint with your left eye while staring with your right, and dance the fandango on a banana peal on a 30th floor balcony railing to make it work.

I wish there was an emoji for someone shuffling cards...

[Cow Poke]

No - I am not missing this at all. My wife and I executed a living will. They made four copies and we signed each copy - because a signed copy was required for the various agencies receiving it. The wills were identical in every respect, except the signature. And that only because there was a legal requirement for "original signed" documentation. Conceptually they represented the same will. Physically, they were distinct documents.

So, ya got yerself a Quadrinity, there!

[carpedm9587]

So, ya got yerself a Quadrinity, there!

You are a putz! A lovable one. But a putz nonetheless.

You remind me of this incredibly rednecked man I met online many years ago. I count him today among my closest friends - but we could not be more widely separated politically or religiously. Yet I know, with every fiber of my being, that he is a good man with a great heart. I know he would do whatever was necessary to help me or mine. Last year, his wife passed. She was also a good friend - though a bit more liberal than he. Now, he is in his final days (I think). I'm 3,000 miles away trying to keep him safe, and it's driving me nuts...

...and I have no idea why I typed all of that. So... I guess the only thing to do is hit "post quick reply." Then I think I'll have a beer, call the old coot, and go to bed.

[Littlejoe]

OK, I've read this. So the argument is that three translations of a treaty are "one thing?" No - they are three distinct translations of the same treaty. And there could be four, five, six, etc. There are as many possible translations as there are languages. This is essentially no different than 58 copies of the same treaty in the same language. They are copies. The fact that the language is different does not keep them from being "copies." Somehow, I doubt that the Christian position is that father/son/spirit are "copies" of each other - just in a different language.

Please explain which is the "original" and which are the copies.

No analogy is perfect, just because there can be more, however, any others in a different language than the three relevant countries would in fact be copies.

[carpedm9587]

Please explain which is the "original" and which are the copies.

No analogy is perfect, just because there can be more, however, any others in a different language than the three relevant countries would in fact be copies.

The "original" would be the one on which the translations were based. After all, you cannot "translate" something unless you have a document on which to base the translation.

Unless you think that two (or three) separate documents were simultaneously crafted in different languages, all representing the same treaty...?

So here is how I understand this normally works. The treaty is agreed to by both parties, and is usually crafted in the language of the dominant party. Then the treaty is translated to other languages, and each translation is reviewed by a bilingual person, and the independent translations are signed off on when they are agreed to adhere to the language of the original treaty. When they are not, the language is adjusted until they are.

The documents are physically separated, and individually signed, to signify this alignment.

Now which part of this, in your opinion, aligns with the concept if the trinity - in which three distinct persons are declared to be the same godhead? Are Jesus and the "spirit" "translations" of the father? Are they valid only when declared to align...in which case who is the authority to declare this, since the players are equivalent to the documents? Is the difference between them nothing more than "linguistic expression and physical form?" If that is the case, then that would make Jesus physically distinct from the father and the spirit - which seems a bit odd.

You, hopefully, begin to see the problems...?

[Littlejoe]

The "original" would be the one on which the translations were based. After all, you cannot "translate" something unless you have a document on which to base the translation.

Unless you think that two (or three) separate documents were simultaneously crafted in different languages, all representing the same treaty...?

So here is how I understand this normally works. The treaty is agreed to by both parties, and is usually crafted in the language of the dominant party. Then the treaty is translated to other languages, and each translation is reviewed by a bilingual person, and the independent translations are signed off on when they are agreed to adhere to the language of the original treaty. When they are not, the language is adjusted until they are.

The documents are physically separated, and individually signed, to signify this alignment.

Now which part of this, in your opinion, aligns with the concept if the trinity - in which three distinct persons are declared to be the same godhead? Are Jesus and the "spirit" "translations" of the father? Are they valid only when declared to align...in which case who is the authority to declare this, since the players are equivalent to the documents? Is the difference between them nothing more than "linguistic expression and physical form?" If that is the case, then that would make Jesus physically distinct from the father and the spirit - which seems a bit odd.

You, hopefully, begin to see the problems...?

You're pulling at straws to burn Carp...Again...analogies aren't perfect. Take the discussion in the abortion is equal to murder thread and the attempts to make an analogy of when a an fetus in the womb is alive...

I refer you to the Vienna Convention on Treaties:

1. When a treaty has been authenticated in two or more languages, the text is equally authoritative in each language, unless the treaty provides or the parties agree that, in case of divergence, a particular text shall prevail. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 19691453
2. A version of the treaty in a language other than one of those in which the text was authenticated shall be considered an authentic text only if the treaty so provides or the parties so agree.3. The terms of the treaty are presumed to have the same meaning in each authentic text.

See a pdf copy of it here: http://global.oup.com/booksites/cont...59466/15550012

Each text is equally authoritative in each language. So, in my example, each language treaty is equally authoritative. What you have is three language versions of a treaty that are actually the treaty, and all make up the treaty. Your getting lost in the "translations" aspect when it really has nothing to do with the reality of it's

I hope you can begin to see the problem with your dismissal.

[Tassman]

Have you addressed Littlejoe's treaty analogy yet? How it is possible to have three separate and distinct documents, yet they are all one and the same treaty? This is something that actually exists here in the physical world. Are you still going to insist that it is logically impossible?

They are not "three separate and distinct documents", they are translations of one document with as many translations as people choose to make. This is no way analogous to the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. But it does show the tortuous reasoning required in the futile attempt to render the doctrine non-contradictory.

[Tassman]

Here you are proving my point. How bout throwing in a few more exclamation points for good measure?

No, it's really not. As has been explained to you ad nauseum, you're perverting the doctrine. You're falsely forcing it to be a comparison of 'three items' to exactly the same 'one of those items'. That's not the Trinity.

https://www.ccel.org/creeds/athanasian.creed.html

In short, one can only arrive at the traditional definition of the Holy Trinity and the Hypostatic Union via contradictions.

[carpedm9587]

You're pulling at straws to burn Carp...Again...analogies aren't perfect. Take the discussion in the abortion is equal to murder thread and the attempts to make an analogy of when a an fetus in the womb is alive...

I refer you to the Vienna Convention on Treaties:

1. When a treaty has been authenticated in two or more languages, the text is equally authoritative in each language, unless the treaty provides or the parties agree that, in case of divergence, a particular text shall prevail. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 19691453
2. A version of the treaty in a language other than one of those in which the text was authenticated shall be considered an authentic text only if the treaty so provides or the parties so agree.3. The terms of the treaty are presumed to have the same meaning in each authentic text.

See a pdf copy of it here: http://global.oup.com/booksites/cont...59466/15550012

Each text is equally authoritative in each language. So, in my example, each language treaty is equally authoritative. What you have is three language versions of a treaty that are actually the treaty, and all make up the treaty. Your getting lost in the "translations" aspect when it really has nothing to do with the reality of it's

I hope you can begin to see the problem with your dismissal.

I don't see a problem here, LJ. What this text is essentially telling you is that, once a treaty is made, any other language version of that treaty has to be authenticated to ensure it aligns with the terms of the original treaty, even in the new language. Once that has been done, then it is likewise signed and has the same authority as the original treaty. This can be done multiple times. You have one "agreement" but multiple copies of that agreement in multiple languages. Any version of the treaty that has not been so authenticated is not considered binding unless there are explicit terms in the treaty permitting it or the parties agree.

What you have here is an advanced form of photocopying, with a language translation thrown in - requiring an authentication process to ensure the translated copy accurately reflects the terms of the actual treaty. I don't see anything even approaching the claims made about the relationship in the triune godhead. There can't be, because the theology of the triune godhead is self-contradictory, but wrapped up in the language of "mystery." I've heard most of the analogies for it (though I have to admit this one is a new one), and they all fail in one respect or another.

The early church was stuck with a problem: a monotheistic foundation with a claim for a god-man distinct from the "father," and Jesus' apparent references to "the spirit." Reconciling this, as well as how a person can be "fully man and fully god" took more than a little theological legerdemain.

[37818]

The "Trinity" is the name of the explanation. The explanation does not need to be explained. The problem is some statements of the Trinity, not the Trinity explanation.

The preincarnate Son of God was both distinct and God in the very beginning (John 1:1-3).

[Cow Poke]

Here you are proving my point. How bout throwing in a few more exclamation points for good measure?

Let's look at your quote again....

Nothing "stubborn" or "obtuse" about it! ...

That thingie that I bolded and enlarged is, indeed, an exclamation point.

I think you are as ignorant about the Trinity as you are about punctuation, and this is not the first time you have denied saying something that I used the QUOTE function to prove you said!