Nobody Dies for a Lie

[Mountain Man]

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.

Exactly! Three separate and distinct documents that each are legally and fully the same treaty! Three things that share one essence. There is no contradiction.

In the same way, each distinct person in the Trinity is fully God. Three things that share one essence. There is no contradiction.

Amazing how you can get it, and still not get it.

[Sparko]

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.

Three distinct documents (pieces of paper), one treaty.

[Sparko]

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.

You are just nitpicking. You know what LJ was trying to say. Nothing is going to be exactly like the Trinity except the Trinity. All he was saying is that each of the documents is fully the Treaty legally speaking. You can argue that one was created first if you want, but that is going beyond the parameters of the analogy. God wasn't created at all. You might as well argue that it doesn't work because a document is paper and God isn't paper.

[Sparko]

Exactly! Three separate and distinct documents that each are legally and fully the same treaty! Three things that share one essence. There is no contradiction.

In the same way, each distinct person in the Trinity is fully God. Three things that share one essence. There is no contradiction.

Amazing how you can get it, and still not get it.

At this point it is clear he doesn't want to get it. So he is attacking the analogy any way he can.

I am waiting for him to claim that God isn't made out of ink next.

[Mountain Man]

They are not "three separate and distinct documents", they are translations of one document with as many translations as people choose to make.

You're getting caught up in the production of a treaty and completely missing the point. Regardless of how they are created, at the end of the day, you have three distinct documents, each of which is fully the treaty in every legal sense, yet there is only one treaty.

Three things; one essence. No contradiction.

[carpedm9587]

Exactly! Three separate and distinct documents that each are legally and fully the same treaty! Three things that share one essence. There is no contradiction.

In the same way, each distinct person in the Trinity is fully God. Three things that share one essence. There is no contradiction.

Amazing how you can get it, and still not get it.

They are copies, MM, just in different languages. It's no different than having the same book in multiple formats and/or languages. There is no contradiction involved. There is significant contradiction in the idea of three "persons" in "one godhead." Jesus uses language like "my father," implying a distinct person/entity - and then that is somehow magically fused into "one god."

The two things are not even close. But if it makes you fell better to think they are...

[carpedm9587]

You are just nitpicking. You know what LJ was trying to say. Nothing is going to be exactly like the Trinity except the Trinity. All he was saying is that each of the documents is fully the Treaty legally speaking. You can argue that one was created first if you want, but that is going beyond the parameters of the analogy. God wasn't created at all. You might as well argue that it doesn't work because a document is paper and God isn't paper.

I'm pointing out that all of the analogies fail because there is no other analog that has the inherent contradiction of the triune god. If you think it somehow provides insight on the nature of this triune being using such analogies...well...it's your religion.

I can tell you, from outside the religion...it tells me (us?) nothing.

[carpedm9587]

At this point it is clear he doesn't want to get it. So he is attacking the analogy any way he can.

I am waiting for him to claim that God isn't made out of ink next.

Actually... I believe most of god IS made out of ink...

Paper? Not so much....

[Cow Poke]

You are just nitpicking. You know what LJ was trying to say. Nothing is going to be exactly like the Trinity except the Trinity.

Every analogy fails at some point, and you can nitpick all the details and find fault, even though it's a "pretty good" description or comparison. Those who want to reject the Trinity will always find reasons to do so.

[Mountain Man]

At this point it is clear he doesn't want to get it. So he is attacking the analogy any way he can.

I am waiting for him to claim that God isn't made out of ink next.

Yes, and his "tilt your head, squint your eyes, dance a jig" approach to biblical exegesis has always made any theological discussion with him a mind-numbing chore. It's little wonder to me that he turned to apostasy given his fast and loose reading of scripture.

[rogue06]

You are just nitpicking. You know what LJ was trying to say. Nothing is going to be exactly like the Trinity except the Trinity.

Exactly. If you, er, carp enough any analogy will fall apart but the treaty one is a good one.

[Littlejoe]

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.

Which is exactly my point. All versions have EQUAL AUTHORITY, (Just like the God Head) therefore, they are ALL the TREATY. (Maybe if I type in bold you will get it?)

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.

Seriously dude? How is this "advanced photocopying" in any way shape or form?
Explain the "claims made about the relationship in the Triune GodHead so that I understand your objection.

Of course there cant be an analogy that fits exactly (I already admitted that...did you miss it?) Just like many other things that do not have exact analogies, because they aren't THAT thing. Make an exact analogy of Water please.

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.

Yes, you're right, the early church had to define it, they did. That you don't believe it, or cannot understand it doesn't take away from whether it's a truth statement or not.

[Mountain Man]

They are copies...

The analogy is not about how they are produced, it's about what they are. To claim that "three persons, one divine essence" is contradictory is like saying that "three documents, one legal essence" is contradictory.

[rogue06]

I'm pointing out that all of the analogies fail because there is no other analog that has the inherent contradiction of the triune god. If you think it somehow provides insight on the nature of this triune being using such analogies...well...it's your religion.

I can tell you, from outside the religion...it tells me (us?) nothing.

Inherently any analogy of anything will eventually fall apart if you pick at it enough.

[Cow Poke]

Inherently any analogy of anything will eventually fall apart if you pick at it enough.

I wish I had said that!

Every analogy fails at some point, and you can nitpick all the details and find fault, even though it's a "pretty good" description or comparison. Those who want to reject the Trinity will always find reasons to do so.