Someone Explain the Trinity to Me!

[Tani Coyote]

As was said, it depends on which doctrine you follow...

In some churches there is no Trinity. Or Jesus is a separate person.

By contrast, in others, the Son and Holy Spirit are "photocopies" of sorts of God, having all his qualities and powers but existing separately despite technically being an extension of him. I suppose it's akin to Hinduism or some such?

Or at least that's my understanding. The religiously-oriented here could probably explain far better.

 

[dusters]

I think what Dusters was getting at was that the Persons of the Trinity share the same essence (divinity) just as we as men share the same essence (humanity.) Of course, there are several factors that allow the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to be considered one God, whereas we couldn't be considered one man.

About correct. In eyes of an ant, any human represents human(ity).

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

No. Even from the earliest records, there was a distinction between Jesus and the Father, from the Spirit/paraclete that comes after Christ. You can argue if you like that these were unnecessarily conflated later on, but saying that they came from various versions of Christ is nonsensical, since they were clearly distinct persons, even from the beginning.

That's the same as having one entity have three distinct entities. It neither makes sense nor can be theologically reconciled unless one invents a new concept-- three-in-one. The original notion of a Messiah was as a messenger sent from god, but who was human. But there were also pagan traditions in the region which allowed for a god to be human in form. The two merged, in a sense, into Christianity. Since the Jewish tradition strictly separated divine from human, a new concept had to be invented to account for the combination. I would even go so far as to say (and wouldn't be the first to say it) that religion regularly has to reinvent itself to keep up with the times. As another example, the laws of the Old Testament were largely abandoned by Christianity (except, of course, during moments when it would've been convenient to follow them).

 

[Dachs]

Ofcourse to some this is pure blasphemy; since there is only 1 God, Jesus and the H. Spirit cannot be God. (They must be of a subordinate nature.)

I'm glad you consider Catholicism and Protestantism to be heretical for the same reasons I do.

 

[BuckyRea]

There was a time, back when I was at a Catholic University taking theology classes, that I could explain in detail the rhetorical magic behind 3=1 and successfully navigate around any logical inconsistencies that might naturally devolve from defending such a counterintuitive proposition.

But those days are long gone. The black-is-white, up-is-down skills I acquired in college have long since left my daily brain usage. If things don't seem to make sense, I've learned to respect my common sense enough to accept that they are insensible. If I don't believe in torturing terrorists, then why on earth would I put up with torturing logic?

 

[holy king]

they're three manifestations of the same god who are able to exist at once, if he wishes so.

i dont get what's not to get about this...

 

[MagisterCultuum]

The word person can be confusing. In its original sense, it referred to a theatrical mask. From there it was metonymically used to refer to the role or character that the actor wearing the mask portrayed, and then eventually extended to refer to the character of an individual in general. That last shift in meaning was first happening right around the time that the word came into use in describing the trinity, which can make it confusing to know just how it was meant.


In the bible itself I believe Persona is only used as a translation of Prosopon, the Greek word for Face. Using the term person in this way would seem to support modalism, the idea that the trinity being one God in three persons in one entity playing 3 roles and manifesting itself in those 3 ways.

However, in the context of the trinity Persona was not used to translate Prosopon, but Hypostasis. This refers not to the face or appearance, but existence, substance, or literally "understanding." These three substances are said to be of the same Ousia, "being" or "essence." In common usage at the time ousia and hypostasis were essentially synonyms though, so the technical distinctions between them were invented for the sake of explaining the trinity.

 

[ParkCungHee]

And that it takes so many words suggests a flaw in reasoning somewhere.

Whats your take on Quantumn Mechanics, Trigonometry, and the causes of World War One?

 

[_random_]

they're three manifestations of the same god who are able to exist at once, if he wishes so.

i dont get what's not to get about this...

Yeah. It's pretty easy to comprehend the heresy of Sabellius. Why do you think he was so successful? Half of the explanations here are in line with his blasphemous thought.

 

[BuckyRea]

they're three manifestations of the same god who are able to exist at once, if he wishes so.

i dont get what's not to get about this...

Now that can't be right! If God is able to manifest as any one of the aspects of the trinity, then that would make them facades. Or at least implies that there would be a time at which God is not manifesting one of the aspects of God, meaning that it doesn't exist for a while, like when Paul Reubens quits acting like Pee-Wee Herman between gigs. But that would invalidate the timeless-spacelessness of the eternity of the Godhead, or at least parts thereof.

 

[cardgame]

the causes of World War One?

greed

(one word)

...do I win a kewpie doll?

 

[Dachs]

greed

(one word)

...do I win a kewpie doll?

 

[GhostWriter16]

greed

(one word)

...do I win a kewpie doll?

More or less correct

I'll post a response to the OP later.

 

[holy king]

Now that can't be right! If God is able to manifest as any one of the aspects of the trinity, then that would make them facades. Or at least implies that there would be a time at which God is not manifesting one of the aspects of God, meaning that it doesn't exist for a while, like when Paul Reubens quits acting like Pee-Wee Herman between gigs. But that would invalidate the timeless-spacelessness of the eternity of the Godhead, or at least parts thereof.

i really dont care for the theological implications, thats how it is, and it's a rather simple concept.

 

[warpus]

The theological implications are moot, unless you believe that all this stuff is true in some way.

 

[Agent327]

At a fig tree

(and some merchants a little later on)

There are more instances in the gospel texts were Jesus shows anger.

I'm glad you consider Catholicism and Protestantism

It´s always wise to consider there is more than one Christian denomination.