Comments on: Identity

By: trinities - Mysterians at work in Dallas (Dale)

trinities - Mysterians at work in Dallas (Dale) — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 14:38:03 +0000

[...] guess it is the (plainly contradictory and so plainly false) claim that each of the three is numerically identical to God, but none of them is numerically identical to either of the other [...]

By: trinities - Reader Question About Modalism (Dale)

trinities - Reader Question About Modalism (Dale) — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 14:41:45 +0000

[...] as a neutral and descriptive term. (See here.) A trinitarian theory is “modalist” if it identifies one or more of the persons of the Trinity with God, or considers one or more persons of the Trinity [...]

By: trinities - The Latin Trinity Chart 1 - 8 things, 1 trinity

trinities - The Latin Trinity Chart 1 - 8 things, 1 trinity — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 14:49:18 +0000

[...] – in the widest sense of “thing”, i.e. something that may be referred to. None is identical to any other. I’ve given each one a unique one or two letter name. But there are only three [...]

By: trinities - Constitution Trinitarianism Part 3: The Meaning of “Is”

trinities - Constitution Trinitarianism Part 3: The Meaning of “Is” — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 15:08:28 +0000

[...] same thing as”, and “numerically the same” to all mean the important relation of identity – that weird relation which everything bears only to itself. Here are some random thoughts about [...]

By: trinities - Constitution Trinitarianism Part 1: Ned and Lumpy

trinities - Constitution Trinitarianism Part 1: Ned and Lumpy — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 18:33:44 +0000

[...] different things are true of them, we know that Lumpy and the statue Ned can’t be identical. But Brower and Rea would say that the two, though not identical, are “numerically the [...]

By: trinities - Trinity Monotheism part 6: Attack of the Dan

trinities - Trinity Monotheism part 6: Attack of the Dan — Sat, 02 Jun 2007 01:57:42 +0000

[...] sets out what he calls the Challenge of Polytheism. This is: If the Father and Son aren’t identical, and yet are each divine, why doesn’t it follow that there are two divinities, that is, two [...]

By: Fadi Ramadan

Fadi Ramadan — Sat, 25 Nov 2006 20:37:37 +0000

and one last thing

about jesus being fully god and fuly man
now i think the biggest problem is in the trinity for if the trinity is false than no reson going to the fully god fully man
but the trinity is correct then a nother question needs to be asked can god put all of earth inside a small egg while still preserving there size?
if god is almighty i think he can doesn’t need logical explanation
what needs logical explination is that i think god would present himself to us in a logical non contradital way thanks
dal i am looking frw for what every you have to say â€¦

By: Fadi Ramadan

Fadi Ramadan — Sat, 25 Nov 2006 20:35:36 +0000

hey Dale
i know that i may have entered this debate a little bit too late but i wanted to add something listinâ€¦what you are stating as a formula of contradiction is true but you made an error allow me to redemonstrait your formula

father = f
son = s
holy spirit = h
f not= s not= h
and taking god = g
we have f=g , s=g ,h=g
contradiction

okay this is wrong for one reson lets examin your fields if you pick a variable wich is x this means that there is one answer for god and you limited a god to any answer so to say father = f is false father is not one solution he is and all the infinity of solutions so then you have the following formula

father = infinty – 0
son = infinty – 1
holly spirt = infinity – 2
now-0 -1 and -2 are not acurate i’m just elimnating a digit i might as well said infinity -8 same thing
now infinty is not equal to infinaty -1 and not equal to infinty – 2 “think of it as a set”

but in essense we all know that infinty -231234 is still infinty so you get the final result
father = infinty
son = infinty
holly spirit = infinaty
infinaty = god
father is god
son is god
holly spirt is god and all are the same god
same infinty
but they are not equil to each other
hope you reply thanks

ps : sorry for spelling mistakes i’m not that good in english

By: Leftow 1: “Anti Social Trinitarianism” at trinities

Leftow 1: “Anti Social Trinitarianism” at trinities — Tue, 14 Nov 2006 16:52:49 +0000

[...] This part seems clear enough. He’s drawing a contrast; he goes on to point out (204-5) that whereas social trinitarians posit three tropes of divinity, because they posit three numerically distinct Persons, LT posits only one trope of divinity, as it holds that the Father just is (that is, is numerically identical to) the Son (etc.). If this was all he’d said, then I’d say it was modalism, and moreover a kind which is refutable. What would he say, I wonder, to the following argument? [...]

By: Transition, Theories at trinities

Transition, Theories at trinities — Mon, 13 Nov 2006 13:55:37 +0000

[...] I purposely started with modalist theories, as they are on what you might think of as the far right wing, chistologically speaking. If Christ just is God, he couldn’t possibly be any greater. Or if he’s a mode of God, then whenever you see Christ doing anything, that’s just God himself acting. From here, I’ll start with “Latin” theories, and go “down” or “to the left” from there, till I get to theories on which Jesus isn’t divine in any strong sense. Whenever I’m doing one of these articles, it’ll have the category of “Theories” (see the list of posting categories to the right). [...]

By: Fadi

Fadi — Fri, 10 Nov 2006 20:33:27 +0000

and one last thing

about jesus being fully god and fuly man
now i think the biggest problem is in the trinity for if the trinity is false than no reson going to the fully god fully man
but the trinity is correct then a nother question needs to be asked can god put all of earth inside a small egg while still preserving there size?
if god is almighty i think he can doesn’t need logical explanation
what needs logical explination is that i think would present himself to us in a logical non contradital way thanks
dal i am looking frw for what every you have to say …

By: Fadi

Fadi — Fri, 10 Nov 2006 20:29:20 +0000

hey Dale
i know that i may have entered this debate a little bit too late but i wanted to add something listin…what you are stating as a formula of contradiction is true but you made an error allow me to redemonstrait your formula

father = f
son = s
holy spirit = h
f not= s not= h
and taking god = g
we have f=g , s=g ,h=g
contradiction

father = infinty
son = infinty – 1
holly spirt = infinity – 2
now -1 and -2 are not acurate i’m just elimnating a digit i might as well said infinity -8 same thing
now infinty is not equal to infinaty -1 and not equal to infinty – 2 “think of it as a set”

but in math we all know that infinty -231234 is still infinty so you get the final result
father = infinty
son = infinty
holly spirit = infinaty
infinaty = god
father is god
son is god
holly spirt is god and all are the same god
same infinty
but they are not equil to each other
hope you reply thanks

ps : sorry for spelling mistakes i’m not that good in english

By: Islam-Inspired Modalism - Part 2 at trinities

Islam-Inspired Modalism - Part 2 at trinities — Thu, 02 Nov 2006 21:08:03 +0000

[...] Michel is a modalist, as I use the term. What I understand him to be saying, in my terminology, is as follows: unorthodox modalism is so because it denies one or more of these: (1) all of God’s modes are intrinsic properties (or his having of intrinsic properties), (2) all of God’s modes are essential to him, (3) all of God’s modes are eternal – none begins or ceases in time. And orthodox trinitarianism is just noumenal, concurrent modalism, plus the claim that the divine modes are essential. But what and how many modes are we talking about here? On this, as far as I can tell, Michel is inconsistent. Sometimes he seems to be espousing what I call SH modalism, and at other times, FSH modalism. In the first vein, he seems to identify God and the Father, while thinking of the Son and Spirit as his modes. Whereas Islamic faith does not address the question of modality, Christian faith holds that Godâ€™s ways are two, Godâ€™s historical self-revelation in the human person of Jesus and Godâ€™s transcendent and active presence at the heart of creation, which we call the Spirit. Thus the two divine processions and two missions of classical Trinitarian theology. (Section 3, my emphasis) [...]

By: The Orthodox Formulas 3: the Athanasian Creed (early 5th century?) at trinities

The Orthodox Formulas 3: the Athanasian Creed (early 5th century?) at trinities — Fri, 08 Sep 2006 12:55:17 +0000

[...] Now there are apparently consistent ways to interpret this document, for instance, using the doctrine of relative identity, or the concepts of material constitution and “numerical identity” which isn’t the relation which occurs in Leibniz’s Law. How, then, can I assert that the Athanasian Creed seems contradictory? Simply, I’m not convinced that the authors had any of these highly rarefied metaphysical notions in mind, nor am I convinced that God inspired the anonymous author of this creed to write truths the meaning of which he didn’t understand, and that indeed no one would really understand until the 1960s (relative identity) or the 1990s (material constitution and “numerical identity” which ain’t identity). Charity does require us to seek for a consistent interpretation of any document, but doesn’t prevent us from ultimately concluding that an author is confused, when no plausible consistent interpretation presents itself. Still, having said that, I must admit that I’ve seen traces of materialistic and quasi-materialistic thinking about God in the era of the church Fathers. Tertullian, I believe, thought (like Hobbes much later) that God is a material object. And others sometimes seem to think of the divine nature (Godhead, deity) as a matter (or something like matter) which might eternally compose three divine persons – a sort of God-stuff. This sort of talk tends to disappear later in the Latin tradition, I’d guess because of the increasing emphasis on the doctrine of divine simplicity, and the Thomistic claim that God is pure act. So I’ll leave the door open to the idea that this creed’s author may have had something like Brower’s and Rea’s constitution trinitarianism in mind, though he’s less than clear about this. I don’t think the same kind of historical considerations can help out the relative identity reading of this creed, but in any case, this version of trinitarianism, like any other, deserves to be considered on its own merits. Another day. [...]

By: If Modalism about the Son were true, then… at trinities

If Modalism about the Son were true, then… at trinities — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 16:27:01 +0000

[...] Remember, the claim is that the Son just is God, or else is a mode of God, a way God is. I think that S modalism has a couple of very unacceptable consequences. First, the theoretical ones. If S modalism is true, then: [...]

By: Dale

Dale — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 13:07:45 +0000

Hi Joel!

As I see it, there’s a theological problem here, and a philosophical one. The theological one is this. According to Chalcedon and the mainstream tradition, the Word (the Son) was “hypostatically united” to a complete human nature, body and soul. On this doctrine, it may be natural to call this complete human nature Jesus, or (more usual) to reserve the name “Jesus” for this new thing with two natures. If one says either thing, then even if the Son has always existed, clearly “Jesus” did not.

However, part of the idea of the Incarnation, one would think, is that the Incarnated Son retains his personal identity through the taking on of flesh – i.e. numerically the same person – Jesus/the Son – was once in heaven, and is now walking around in Galilee healing people.

This raises the strictly philosophical problem of intrinsic change. Given Leibniz’s Law, how can, say, the two year old Joel be numerically identical to the twenty-five year old Joel? (Many things are true of one but not of the other.) Generally, how can anything have different intrinsic properties at different times?

Now there are a number of standard philosophical solutions to this. I believe that the controversial doctrine of “presentism” best solves it, but perhaps anyone should say at least this. We know (from our own case) that intrinsic change happens. Ergo, it is possible – even if we can’t show how. So, I don’t see any particular problem for christology here.

By: If Modalism about the Son is true, then… at trinities

If Modalism about the Son is true, then… at trinities — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 11:59:06 +0000

By: Joel

Joel — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 07:16:03 +0000

Hey Dale,

Here is a question I have been wrestling with for 3.5 hours tonight (putting off sleep and study) but have raised in a couple of settings more than once:

Was the Son of God always Jesus? Or to use Johannine language: Was the Word always Jesus?

“In the beginning was the Word. “And the Word became flesh.” Jesus had a birthday way after ‘the beginning’…

Does the identity equation ‘Word (or the Son) = Jesus’ violate Leibnizâ€™s Law?

By: the evangelical outpost

the evangelical outpost — Fri, 28 Jul 2006 04:47:55 +0000

Outtakes07.28.06…

The Mapmaker — Ever wonder how Google Maps knows how to tell you to turn left at I94 or that its .2 miles until the next turn? It’s because this guy drives around and maps out the directions. (HT: Google……

By: Dale

Dale — Thu, 06 Jul 2006 13:48:06 +0000

Hi Christian,

You raise a number of interesting issues! The three “whatevers” is a real can of worms.

I should probably hold off on them, though. I’ll probably post on Merricks some time. All I’ll say now is that I wasn’t convinced by his paper that we don’t know what a person is.

And you do raise an important question: Why does the NT characterize Jesus and God’s “Son”? That has always proven very offensive to Muslims, for one.

The claim is of course to be taken non-literally. The concept of sonship seems two-sided to me: part of it is functional. Being a full-fledged son means relating in a certain way to one’s parent(s). Another aspect of it is origin. A son is in some sense from his parents. This latter aspect is perhaps the more troubling one when it comes to trinitarian doctrine. Both aspects it seems to me, require that the son not be identical to either parent, as you point out.