is there any logical evidence that can prove the trinity ?

[ibn_alskeet]

Hi everyone I am a Muslim in my discussion with Christians on Facebook the only argument for the trinity requires me to believe in the new testament and not Jesus wards but Paul's perspective  about god because I have much respect for doctor Craig and I hope to see some good arguments for the idea of Trinity THANKS

[Aaron Massey]

It depends on how you frame the question, with in the science of scripture logical? or with in the science of the world logical?    Lots of things that are complete bonkers can be logical.

The trinity it self is a logical paradox, it is done that way as part of being "the mystery of God"

You will never find a logical fact that would show that the Trinity is true. 

[Scoroccio]

No there is not really, not for a trinity at least. There are however logical reasons to deny the Trinity. See for example my post in this section of the forum on how the ontological argument logically exclude a “triune God” and points to a Unitarian God. No one as of yet has been willing/able to answer my post sufficiently.
The only “logical” argument I have heard in order to “prove” the trinity is the following:
1. God has always been loving
2. One person alone with no one to show love for can’t be said to be loving
3. God must be triune so that the persons can love each other.

I don’t find this a good argument though, it’s almost childish to define love that way. It’s an abstract quality. God is love and he expressed it in creation. Time was created by God and since the point of creation he has shown his love and so has been loving at all times. Even before the creation he still had the quality of love, just not expressed. And even if the argument was solid it would not lead to a triune God, but minimum of a binitarian God or an ”infinitarian” God.
The other argument they try is that you can logically conclude the trinity from scripture by looking at divine prerogatives and who carries them out, example:
1. Only God can do X.
2. Jesus does X.
3. Jesus is God
4. God is a trinity

This is also a bad argument because it has a lot of unwarranted assumptions. Who says that only God can do X? What if God gives Jesus the authority/power to do X (like forgiving sins)? The Bible plainly states that God has given Jesus that power/authority not that Jesus always had it. And of course even if the argument was true, it only leads to identify Jesus as God and not a trinity. They rarely even try to prove that Holy Spirit is a person or God because it is nowhere in the Bible. They just throw in the Holy Spirit at the end as a “buy 2 get 1 for free” deal.

[HGStrnad5]

For quite some time I have been considering the question: Are there good reasons in favour of thinking of God as a trinitarian being rather than a unitarian being? Assuming that there exists a God and creator of all of reality, what reasonable and plausible arguments are there, that this God is the christian, trinitarian God and not the unitarian God of Islam or Judaism?
For a most perfect being (God) who is actually loving in a selfless way, there must be someone else to direct his love to (before creation of the universe there was only God - if this God has only ONE center of self-consciousness like the unitarian God of Islam and Judaism, then he can only love himself, because there is no one else he can direct his love to. Only if one starts with trinitarian concept of God - THREE centers of self-consciousness in ONE Godhead - then God can actually be loving, because between the members of the Trinity, there has always been love, even before the creation of the world. God did not have to create humans in order to love.
Another argument in favour of the trinity, that comes to my mind is the following:
All of reality – all parts of it up to the whole universe itself - is made up of things that are units (unity)  and of differentiating parts (diversities) which constitute these units. So all of reality consist of unity and diversity. Giving just a few examples like space and time, mathematical units and sets, the area of plants, animals and humans, from the biggest, the universe, down to the smallest, the atom, every thing or object is a unit that consists of differentiating parts. God is the origin and creator of all of realtiy and therefore also of unity and diversity. Since God is the origin of all of reality, it´s plausible to assume that in God there is also unity and diversity present. Now only in the concept of the trinity you have a God who IS ESSENTIALLY UNITY AND DIVERSITY IN HIS BEING. So the trinitarian God of Christianity has more explanatory power to account for the presence of unity and diversity in all of reality than a unitarian God has. Now this is not an argument that "proves" the trinity but it explains best the existence of unity and diversity by a God, who is himself unity and diversity (THREE centers of self-consciousness in ONE Godhead).
To my understanding, this seems to be two reasonable arguments in favour of the trinitarian God of christianity

[noncontingent]

The problem I have with the trinity is two-fold.

First is the scriptures themselves. No one who hadn't been taught the trinity would have thought that Yahweh, Jesus and the Holy Spirit were some sort of numinous "Three Musketeers".

Yaweh is clearly the father and the only true God.

Yeshua or Jesus is his creation, in fact the scriptures describe him as "the first born of all creation" Col. 1:15.

Jesus clearly had a will separate from his father's.

"..let not my will, but yours be done" - Luke 22:42

The holy spirit seems nothing more than divine power. No personality associated with it at all.

"..you will receive power when the holy spirit comes on you" - Act1 1:8

Moreover it butchers the whole concept of the at-one-ment BETWEEN God and man.

"For there is ONE GOD and ONE MEDIATOR between God and mankind,THE MAN Christ Jesus, 6who gave himself as a ransom for all people." 1 Ti. 2:5

"20But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27For he “has put everything under his feet.” c Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all." 1 Cor. 15:20-28

1. Adam sinned, so all sinned. The sin of Adam had a penalty - death. (he would never have died otherwise)
2. Adam had no right to give perfect life to his offspring because he forfeited perfect life, so we all age and die even if we haven't sinned "after the likeness of Adam"
3. The big mystery until Jesus Christ, was "Who could provide the payment for the sin?" No human, since all have sinned.

    Jesus could.

"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created through him and for him. Also, he is before all [other] things and by means of him all [other] things were made to exists." - Col. 1:15

He volunteered for the fatal mission, putting full trust in his Father to defend his name and honor and sovereignty by becoming a human, born of a virgin so he had every right to a perfect unending life. In this he was different from every human prior to him except Adam. He became the second Adam and as one of God's "sheep" he also became his own sacrifice as God's High Priest in Gods Temple. He willingly gave up his life to propitiate or cover the debt incurred by Adam and opened the way for all people worldwide to attain to a resurrection (which has yet to occur).

The Trinity butchers and makes a mess of the whole thing.

The second point is historical, we don't see this nonsense get jacked int0 Christianity until centuries later and promulgated at the point of a sword. It came out of Greek Platonism.

Really it amazes me how someone as brilliant as Craig can't see this.

So Jesus is not God. Divine, yes, but the Almighty God? No.

God created Jesus, and he followed his instructions creating everything else.

"1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning. 3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome a it." John 1:1

Now people will use the one scripture to qualify the many when they are trinitarians, and this is the one they love to point to, however in this context "God" is an adjective, not an identified. In other translations we read "the word was divine".

Elsewhere Jesus quotes Psalm 82:6 to the pharisees where evil judges are spoken of as "gods"

"6“I said, ‘You are “gods”; you are all sons of the Most High.’ 7But you will die like mere mortals; you will fall like every other ruler.”"

John 10:33-36
33“We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”

34Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods” ’ d ? 35If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside— 36what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? 37Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. 38But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.”

So this "God-ness" is no blasphemy,  nor is there some heavenly woman w/whom God had intercourse to produce a son. Jesus, The Word, The Firstborn of all creation, the Last Adam, The Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world, our Passover lamb, our King anointed by God, the High Priest according to the manner of Melchizedek...this is who Jesus was and is and will become.

The Trinity is in my view an antichrist doctrine, supplanting and replacing Christ in the same manner as does the Pope.

[Natus Regis]

Hi everyone I am a Muslim in my discussion with Christians on Facebook the only argument for the trinity requires me to believe in the new testament and not Jesus wards but Paul's perspective  about god because I have much respect for doctor Craig and I hope to see some good arguments for the idea of Trinity THANKS

The Trinity is a affirmed as a truth of special revelation and not something to be discovered by reason. (See Aquinas.)

[jayceeii]

The Trinity is a affirmed as a truth of special revelation and not something to be discovered by reason. (See Aquinas.)

The Trinity can be deduced by reason, in those who have met the Incarnation and verified He is not a creature, and have been able to observe God’s actions from Invisibility in our world. As Christians continue rejoicing with clapping hands that the Holy Spirit enters them, for instance, this might be something that an angel could observe, then drawing a connection to the Incarnation whom has met sometime, verifying the Lord is indeed God.

Nonetheless the only solid proof must come through the testimony of the Incarnation Himself, since knowledge of God’s exact nature is fortuitously beyond the angels’ grasp. (There are dreadful existential consequences, were this not so.) Jesus’ statement of being the sole route to the Father takes on overarching significance, in any discussions about God. Possibly the Incarnation sees the Holy Spirit in a continual, even pestering, manner.

[CorneliusC]

I actually don't see anything illogical or unreasonable about the Trinity.

By definition, the Trinity affirms, "three persons in one God." Using the language of set theory, if G is the set of God, then G comprises three elements, which are three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. If there were multiple deities, there would be multiple sets.

In other words, the Trinity is a consistent definition, not an argument per se. To argue in its favour, we must rely upon Scripture and Tradition.

Of course, we may not be able to imagine such a possibility, but that does not preclude its logical plausibility.

[jayceeii]

if G is the set of God, then G comprises three elements, which are three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

An attempt to apply set theory here is misleading, because deep existential issues are involved whereas set theory implies boundaries. For instance if I say, “Applying set theory to Cornelius, regions of love, hatred and ambivalence are three of his elements,” in fact you are yourself experiencing these three states. You see there are no clear boundaries, and while they are different aspects of yourself, you are really there in all.

Similarly the consciousness of the Creator is literally present in Father (Mind of God), Son (Personality of God), and Holy Spirit (God’s organs of action in the world). Attempting to apply set theory makes  a further mistake of trivializing the Deity, where although it is obvious the Son is the “smallest” aspect of God, literally nothing is known about the other two aspects, in terms of size, power, or influence over the created realm.

[Maxximiliann]

I actually don't see anything illogical or unreasonable about the Trinity.

By definition, the Trinity affirms, "three persons in one God." Using the language of set theory, if G is the set of God, then G comprises three elements, which are three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. If there were multiple deities, there would be multiple sets.

In other words, the Trinity is a consistent definition, not an argument per se. To argue in its favour, we must rely upon Scripture and Tradition.

Of course, we may not be able to imagine such a possibility, but that does not preclude its logical plausibility.

As am I'm sure you're aware, Luke 1:36 states that Mary and Elizabeth are cousins and that John is six months older than Jesus, making John and Jesus second cousins. Luke 3:23 also informs us that John baptized Jesus when this one was about 30 years old, said baptism found recorded in Luke 3:21, 22.

Considering all these historical facts from the lens of your claims we have to ask:
 

[1] John is God's second cousin who is six months older than Him?
[2] Why did God need to be baptized?
[3] John saw God come down in the form of a bird and sit down on top of God's head?
[4] Both John and God heard God saying to God, "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased?

[Maxximiliann]

Hi everyone I am a Muslim in my discussion with Christians on Facebook the only argument for the trinity requires me to believe in the new testament and not Jesus wards but Paul's perspective  about god because I have much respect for doctor Craig and I hope to see some good arguments for the idea of Trinity THANKS

The Trinity is a affirmed as a truth of special revelation and not something to be discovered by reason. (See Aquinas.)

You forget that "God is not a God of confusion." (1 Corinthians 14:33 (RSV) This is crucial since the Great Teacher commanded, “You must love Jehovah your God . . .  with your whole mind.’” (Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27)

Indeed, “not many wise in a fleshly way were called, not many powerful, not many of noble birth; but God chose the foolish things of the world, that he might put the wise men to shame.” (1 Corinthians 1:26-28) Think back, if you will, to the kinds of men Jesus chose to be his apostles? Were they the Intelligentsia of their day? Absolutely not! These were typical men. (Acts 4:13)

Why is this fact so important? Because if these simple, ordinary men were to obey and 'love Jehovah with their whole mind' then they had to understand what they were being taught. (Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27)

Hence, the need for, not mysteries and pompous gobbledygook, but  logic and reasonableness. In fact, all 1st century Christians were admonished to understand, to “thoroughly grasp mentally what is the breadth and length and height and depth and to know that they may be filled with all the fullness that God gives.” (Ephesians 3:18,19)

The people of the ancient city of Beroea, by way of example, were lauded and set as a model for each one of us for the simple reason that, when Paul and Silas visited them to instruct them on truth, these 'carefully examined the Scriptures daily as to whether these things were so.' (Acts 17:11)

Did Paul condemn them because they made an effort to reason things out? Did he inform them that their inquiries were pointless since absolute truth was simply unobtainable until they received special revelation or got to heaven? Far from it! In reality, he encouraged these to make sense of the details. He certainly wasn't fearful of their examination of everything he was educating them on. Why was this the case? Simply because "God is not a God of confusion" and they were required to 'love Jehovah with their whole mind'. (1 Corinthians 14:33; Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27)

Truth be told, with soooo many fanatics running around spreading their mendacious ideologies on what Biblical truth is, now more than ever, it is vital that we “not believe every inspired expression, but test the inspired expressions to see whether they originate with God, because many false prophets have gone forth into the world.” (1 John 4:1)

[kravarnik]

Hi everyone I am a Muslim in my discussion with Christians on Facebook the only argument for the trinity requires me to believe in the new testament and not Jesus wards but Paul's perspective  about god because I have much respect for doctor Craig and I hope to see some good arguments for the idea of Trinity THANKS

Hey, ibn_alskeet.


The Trinity could be viewied as somewhat logically necessary, given what understanding one has of "personhood". That is:

- in classical theistic metaphysics, personhood is a real relationship that takes place in the mind, between the mind and its intellect

So, personhood is only possible within rational nature. Such as angels, human beings, spirits, God. Now, the Christian claim and understanding of the Trinity is thusly formulated(the following is informal and my own paraphrasing of the official doctrine):


We believe that in the Divine Mind more than 1 such real relationship takes place. Not only between the Divine Mind and the Divine Intellect, but also between the Divine Intellect and the Divine Word. This real relationship is Whom we call the Son, because when the Father(=the intellect) loves Himself(=the Divine Mind), He begets the Son(=the Word/Thought/Logos).


Similarly, when the Intellect/Father knows Himself/the Divine Mind, then the Spirit processed.



We believe these are necessary relationships that take place in God, whereby God necessarily loves Himself, for there's nothing greater to love, than God, and whereby God knows Himself and nothing greater can be known. And through this inner-relationships that take place in the Divine Mind, we believe, Three Persons are.


The Father, who is the fountain of the Godhead, from Whom the Son is Begotten, and from Whom the Spirit proceed. For, the intellect holds primacy in the human mind as well - it is the intellect that begets thoughts, and it is the intellect that seeks knowledge. In our being, the thoughts we have are contingent and finite, thus they cannot proceed to be a distinct person. In God, however, these are relationships that have taken place for eternity from eternity, thus God's Intellect, Love and Knowledge are LIVING - that is, they are Persons.


Threfore, if God is to be omnibenevolent, He would need actual subjects of His Love. Say, if God was unitarian, then prior to Creation, whom did He love? He definitely cannot "love" uncreated beings that do not exist, much like you cannot a thing that doesn't exist at all.


However, the Trinity is the most central doctrine of Christianity, the one of utmost mystery. We believe it on the basis of Revelation, not on the basis of natural reason. Natural reason can only inform us that if there's an all-loving God, then He must have loved someone prior to creating. However, you cannot those persons, unless they reveal themselves, much like your natural knowledge tells you that each man has personhood, but you wouldn't know a thing about anyone's personality, if they didn't reveal themselves.


In this same fashion we believe in the Trinity - it is revealed theology, not natural one. Natural one only drives us to the end, where God needs someone else to love prior to Creation, because otherwise His omnibenevolence and Love would be contingent upon Creation, and not absolute and necessary from eternity and for eternity, which is blasphemous. God by definition ought to be a loving being.

[Maxximiliann]

Hi everyone I am a Muslim in my discussion with Christians on Facebook the only argument for the trinity requires me to believe in the new testament and not Jesus wards but Paul's perspective  about god because I have much respect for doctor Craig and I hope to see some good arguments for the idea of Trinity THANKS

Hey, ibn_alskeet.


The Trinity could be viewied as somewhat logically necessary, given what understanding one has of "personhood". That is:

- in classical theistic metaphysics, personhood is a real relationship that takes place in the mind, between the mind and its intellect

So, personhood is only possible within rational nature. Such as angels, human beings, spirits, God. Now, the Christian claim and understanding of the Trinity is thusly formulated(the following is informal and my own paraphrasing of the official doctrine):


We believe that in the Divine Mind more than 1 such real relationship takes place. Not only between the Divine Mind and the Divine Intellect, but also between the Divine Intellect and the Divine Word. This real relationship is Whom we call the Son, because when the Father(=the intellect) loves Himself(=the Divine Mind), He begets the Son(=the Word/Thought/Logos).


Similarly, when the Intellect/Father knows Himself/the Divine Mind, then the Spirit processed.



We believe these are necessary relationships that take place in God, whereby God necessarily loves Himself, for there's nothing greater to love, than God, and whereby God knows Himself and nothing greater can be known. And through this inner-relationships that take place in the Divine Mind, we believe, Three Persons are.


The Father, who is the fountain of the Godhead, from Whom the Son is Begotten, and from Whom the Spirit proceed. For, the intellect holds primacy in the human mind as well - it is the intellect that begets thoughts, and it is the intellect that seeks knowledge. In our being, the thoughts we have are contingent and finite, thus they cannot proceed to be a distinct person. In God, however, these are relationships that have taken place for eternity from eternity, thus God's Intellect, Love and Knowledge are LIVING - that is, they are Persons.


Threfore, if God is to be omnibenevolent, He would need actual subjects of His Love. Say, if God was unitarian, then prior to Creation, whom did He love? He definitely cannot "love" uncreated beings that do not exist, much like you cannot a thing that doesn't exist at all.


However, the Trinity is the most central doctrine of Christianity, the one of utmost mystery. We believe it on the basis of Revelation, not on the basis of natural reason. Natural reason can only inform us that if there's an all-loving God, then He must have loved someone prior to creating. However, you cannot those persons, unless they reveal themselves, much like your natural knowledge tells you that each man has personhood, but you wouldn't know a thing about anyone's personality, if they didn't reveal themselves.


In this same fashion we believe in the Trinity - it is revealed theology, not natural one. Natural one only drives us to the end, where God needs someone else to love prior to Creation, because otherwise His omnibenevolence and Love would be contingent upon Creation, and not absolute and necessary from eternity and for eternity, which is blasphemous. God by definition ought to be a loving being.

As I'm sure you're aware, Luke 1:36 states that Mary and Elizabeth are cousins and that John is six months older than Jesus, making John and Jesus second cousins. Luke 3:23 also informs us that John baptized Jesus when this one was about 30 years old, said baptism found recorded in Luke 3:21, 22.

Considering all these historical facts from the lens of your claims we have to ask:
 

[1] John is God's second cousin who is six months older than Him?
[2] Why did God need to be baptized?
[3] John saw God come down in the form of a bird and sit down on top of God's head?
[4] Both John and God heard God saying to God, "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased?

[kravarnik]

As I'm sure you're aware, Luke 1:36 states that Mary and Elizabeth are cousins and that John is six months older than Jesus, making John and Jesus second cousins. Luke 3:23 also informs us that John baptized Jesus when this one was about 30 years old, said baptism found recorded in Luke 3:21, 22.

Considering all these historical facts from the lens of your claims we have to ask:
 

[1] John is God's second cousin who is six months older than Him?
[2] Why did God need to be baptized?
[3] John saw God come down in the form of a bird and sit down on top of God's head?
[4] Both John and God heard God saying to God, "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased?

So, I don't understand the issue here.


If you understand "personhood" as an extension of rational nature(=something with a mind), then there's absolutely no issue. The person is not a distinct ontological entity from the mind. That is:

- when you have mind + person, you don't have 1 + 1. Rather, you have 1 and its relational extension.


The "I" of the mind is not a seperate ontological entity of the mind. As if you have one thing - the mind; plus another thing - the person. No, you have the mind and the person of that mind.


So, the issue here is your misunderstanding of personhood and what it is construed as within classical theism. I mean, even secular pscyhology would tell you that. The "I" of the mind is not a distinct entity from the mind. It is an extension of the mind. The operating system of the mind, so to speak.


Thus, it is perfectly coherent:

- the First Divine Person calls the Second Divine Person - God

Because both of Them abide in the same Divine Mind, thus both are God. Both of Them come from the Divine Essence, but are Two different Divine Persons.

Just like human beings have one human nature and many persons. You, me, William Lane Craig, Saint Augustine and so forth. However, there's only one human nature. And just like it does make sense for me to call you "man", and you call me "man", so does it make sense for One Divine Person to call another God, and vice-versa.

[jayceeii]

As I'm sure you're aware, Luke 1:36 states that Mary and Elizabeth are cousins and that John is six months older than Jesus, making John and Jesus second cousins. Luke 3:23 also informs us that John baptized Jesus when this one was about 30 years old, said baptism found recorded in Luke 3:21, 22.

Considering all these historical facts from the lens of your claims we have to ask:
 
[1] John is God's second cousin who is six months older than Him?
[2] Why did God need to be baptized?
[3] John saw God come down in the form of a bird and sit down on top of God's head?
[4] Both John and God heard God saying to God, "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased?

So, I don't understand the issue here.

If you understand "personhood" as an extension of rational nature(=something with a mind), then there's absolutely no issue. The person is not a distinct ontological entity from the mind. That is:

- when you have mind + person, you don't have 1 + 1. Rather, you have 1 and its relational extension.

The "I" of the mind is not a seperate ontological entity of the mind. As if you have one thing - the mind; plus another thing - the person. No, you have the mind and the person of that mind.

So, the issue here is your misunderstanding of personhood and what it is construed as within classical theism. I mean, even secular pscyhology would tell you that. The "I" of the mind is not a distinct entity from the mind. It is an extension of the mind. The operating system of the mind, so to speak.

Thus, it is perfectly coherent:

- the First Divine Person calls the Second Divine Person - God

Because both of Them abide in the same Divine Mind, thus both are God. Both of Them come from the Divine Essence, but are Two different Divine Persons.

Just like human beings have one human nature and many persons. You, me, William Lane Craig, Saint Augustine and so forth. However, there's only one human nature. And just like it does make sense for me to call you "man", and you call me "man", so does it make sense for One Divine Person to call another God, and vice-versa.

mm: [1] John is God's second cousin who is six months older than Him?

jc: This one is arguing from a pure material perspective, allowing neither mind nor spirit. Yet the religions did not supply a firm existential paradigm, therefore we find the humans displaying their limitations with pride. Had this paradigm been given, their ignorance would be a little masked. Yet to give it would’ve impaired the popularity of religion too.

mm: [2] Why did God need to be baptized?

jc: This was to forward the superstition that man could reach salvation for a song, i.e. a tiny amount of mainly symbolic effort. In truth baptism has no effect whatever on a soul.

mm: [3] John saw God come down in the form of a bird and sit down on top of God's head?

jc: The Holy Spirit does extend Its powers throughout the animal kingdom, not only the human realm, so this amounts to John’s awareness this unusual behavior from a dove was from God’s influence. I too have seen animals do strange things, like attempt philosophy.

mm: [4] Both John and God heard God saying to God, "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased?

jc: This is just a restatement of the eternal truth that the Son can do no wrong, which is to say His behavior is always of the highest order, though men are unable to interpret it as such as they drag Him down to circle around them instead of trying to circle around Him.

kv: So, I don't understand the issue here.

jc: The error he should have seen was in the use of the term “beloved Son,” since love only really applies to another, and the Son is not other than God. A better phrase would be, “This is my glorious Incarnation, given to you of Earth for now. Try to follow Him.”

kv: If you understand "personhood" as an extension of rational nature(=something with a mind), then there's absolutely no issue. The person is not a distinct ontological entity from the mind.

jc: Actually, to have a mind does not automatically make one a person. Only those with free minds are authentic persons. Those with corrupted minds are something more like devils, which is to say interacting with hostility instead of sympathy, seeking private short-term aims instead of the public good in the long-term. And the civilization they generate is not an authentic civilization, which is to say one where goodness is honored.

kv: That is:

- when you have mind + person, you don't have 1 + 1. Rather, you have 1 and its relational extension.

jc: To know the mind is the most difficult art, nor has anyone been instructed in this art, nor is anyone practicing it today. The proof God exists is in the mind, if it is well-known.

kv: The "I" of the mind is not a separate ontological entity of the mind. As if you have one thing - the mind; plus another thing - the person. No, you have the mind and the person of that mind.

jc: If you speak of “I,” you must speak of the “selfish I” of the bound souls, and the “selfless I” of the free souls. The selfish I is bound to the material plane, the selfless I springs directly from spirit in truth. These “I’s” are radically incompatible, and while those with selfless I’s can try to understand the selfish I’s, it doesn’t work the other way.

kv: So, the issue here is your misunderstanding of personhood and what it is construed as within classical theism. I mean, even secular pscyhology would tell you that. The "I" of the mind is not a distinct entity from the mind. It is an extension of the mind. The operating system of the mind, so to speak.

jc: The only slightly accurate theories about the “I” are from Hinduism, as it speaks of the ahankara or worldview maker. In general language falls apart in the inner realm, and any terms chosen must be carefully defined and explained, related to actual phenomena.

kv: Thus, it is perfectly coherent:

- the First Divine Person calls the Second Divine Person - God

Because both of Them abide in the same Divine Mind, thus both are God.

jc: So far, so good. Yet it is imperative to emphasize it is literally all one Spirit, in Father, Son and Holy Ghost. These are literal connections, and literally the same Being. The weak term “abide” is used here, when a stronger term such as “cohere” should be used.

kv: Both of Them come from the Divine Essence, but are Two different Divine Persons.

jc: No. Here things take a dive south. The Father and Son are two aspects of the same person. It’s one person expressing Himself in two places. Perhaps if you think of your right and left hand you can begin to understand my point. These can do different things, these are different hands, but they are really just a way for one person to express himself.

kv: Just like human beings have one human nature and many persons. You, me, William Lane Craig, Saint Augustine and so forth.

jc: This is definitely not right, and you’ll offend the angels should they read this! The souls are created separate from one another. To say they share a common nature because they were created similarly, is a mere lingual shuffle that ignores the existential reality. There are no comparisons of the Trinity, with the created souls. These souls have a unitary consciousness, not a split consciousness. Only God can divide His consciousness.

kv: However, there's only one human nature.

jc: Again, you appear trapped in a shallow lingual shuffle, remarking that “human nature” and “divine nature” seem like parallel terms, but without any inquiry into the existential underpinnings. In fact there are myriad ranks of souls, all with different natures. Human nature has echelons, and if these are seen then immortality is known.

kv: And just like it does make sense for me to call you "man", and you call me "man", so does it make sense for One Divine Person to call another God, and vice-versa.

jc: To refute this it’s best to bring in the angels as examples, since these are divine persons. Then, it is right for the angels to call one another “angel,” but not right to say they are equated existentially. However when Jesus says, “God,” He could as well say, “Myself in disembodied portion.” Jesus cannot meet another God, something of a curse.