The Trinity.

[Azadre]

If God needs a human form to enforce his will, then he is no god at all.

 

[Margim]

If God needs a human form to enforce his will, then he is no god at all.

If God is God, then God can enforce God's will in which ever way God choses.

 

[Warman17]

1900 years? Tell that to Abraham, that time the Father, Son and Holy Spirit visited him.

No, that was just God

 

[Perfection]

Maybe it's like the three Stooges; Larry, Curly, and Moe they're different people yet they make up one comedy group, I suppose the same could be said about the trinity.


Maybe there all joined at the waist like the three-headed Geryon.

 

[Margim]

a) Does that mean that Jesus is less powerful than God the Father?

b)Then does Jesus no longer exist, or does his divinity (but not body) still exist?

c)Yes, but if it can't be grasped, who's to say that it is correct? If I came up with a unifying theory of anything that could not be understood by anyone, why should anyone believe it?

A) Yes and no. No in that Jesus is part of the one God. Yes in that Jesus as a human assumed a position of powerlessness, seperate from God the Father.

b) The son still exists... Jesus was his 'human form' - I'd say the body exists, but not necessarily in a physical sense. Jesus body, post resurrection, was 'the same' - it could be touched - but different - it could walk through walls.

c) It comes down to a question of inspiration and belief. It is an unashamadly unscientific assertion that it is God's reality, so we believe it.

As christians, we believe God made the universe and its parametres, not the other way around. Thus, God can exist in a sphere not understood by God's creation, while God's creation, while always searching (and moving towards) God, will never understand everything about God.

If God exists, then our belief or unbelief does not affect the reality of God
If your theory is correct, our belief or unbelief does not affect its correctness.

But you would have knowingly made your theory up, whereas the trinity is theoretically meant to be a universal truth, not made up by people, but by God

 

[Yom]

A) Yes and no. No in that Jesus is part of the one God. Yes in that Jesus as a human assumed a position of powerlessness, seperate from God the Father.

So the three parts of the trinity are unequal even though they are all a part of God?

b) The son still exists... Jesus was his 'human form' - I'd say the body exists, but not necessarily in a physical sense. Jesus body, post resurrection, was 'the same' - it could be touched - but different - it could walk through walls.

Okay. For a moment I thought you were saying that Jesus was the physical manifestation of God, and that the Holy Spirit was the divine spirit inhabiting Jesus. Since that is not the case, what exactly is the Holy Spirit?

c) It comes down to a question of inspiration and belief. It is an unashamadly unscientific assertion that it is God's reality, so we believe it.

As christians, we believe God made the universe and its parametres, not the other way around. Thus, God can exist in a sphere not understood by God's creation, while God's creation, while always searching (and moving towards) God, will never understand everything about God.

If God exists, then our belief or unbelief does not affect the reality of God
If your theory is correct, our belief or unbelief does not affect its correctness - you would have knowingly made your theory up, whereas the trinity is theoretically meant to be a universal truth, not made up by people, but by God

That works when confronted with a choice between Christianity and not Christianity, but what about when confronted with equally Christian theories regarding the nature of God? For instance, whether or not Jesus has a monophysite nature, the relationship between the forces in the trinity, and how long that the trinity has existed (e.g. always or only since Jesus). All of these are Christian concepts, yet you cannot simply base your decisions off of your belief in Christianity or God: there must be some method of discrimination between the correct and incorrect.

 

[CivCynic]

The whole subject is confusing and irrational to me.

...and indeed that is the way it will remain for everyone until death.

One thing that I have noticed throughout this thread, Yom, is that you are taking everything excessively literally/physically. You have also used nothing but common sense. These are things that we, as humans, use to provide strong arguements amongst ourselves. In this case, you have to be flexible.

I know other people here have already used analogies to use for thinking about the Trinity, but think of it as a tri-way Venn diagram. They are all connected, but still separate. They are all within eachother, but still outside of each other. It makes sense when you look at it on paper, but it doesn't make sense when you look at it in numbers (that is, 1 is 1, 3 is 3, 1 is 3, 3 is 1). Do you catch my drift? Separate but equal.

If you want to understand God and all of his/her/its workings, don't think like a human.

 

[Margim]

a)So the three parts of the trinity are unequal even though they are all a part of God?

b) Okay. For a moment I thought you were saying that Jesus was the physical manifestation of God, and that the Holy Spirit was the divine spirit inhabiting Jesus. Since that is not the case, what exactly is the Holy Spirit?


c)That works when confronted with a choice between Christianity and not Christianity, but what about when confronted with equally Christian theories regarding the nature of God? For instance, whether or not Jesus has a monophysite nature, the relationship between the forces in the trinity, and how long that the trinity has existed (e.g. always or only since Jesus). All of these are Christian concepts, yet you cannot simply base your decisions off of your belief in Christianity or God: there must be some method of discrimination between the correct and incorrect.

a) Not unequal, just focusing on different roles ie one as the source of creation, one as the means of creation, one as creation taking place.
I once heard creation described as the speaking of a word - the father being the mouth, the spirit as the breath, the word itself being Christ (fitting with the opening to John's gospel - in the beginning was the word. The word was God and the word was with God). Don't think about the particulars of the metaphor too much - just pointing out that all three elements serve a vital purpose.

b) The holy spirit, as far as I can work out, it God acting in and through creation, be it dramatically like the Acts account of pentecost, or more subtly in the lives of individuals as they seek to understand God.

c) If you recall my earlier post, I said there were two fundamentals - the reality of father, son and spirit, and the necessity of Christs death and resurrection. Those are the unchangable elements. The way it works we will not necessarily know, but are called to try and work out... that is what faith is - engaging with our creator, using our hearts, soul and god given minds to grapple with the extraordinary. I actually don't think that God really cares whether we personally believe in the pre-eminance of one or the other members of the trinity - as long as we believe, and are committed to bringing about the good news of love, life and community that the trinity embodies.

note: unfortunately it is now very late here, and i need to go to bed. I'd love to take this up again at another hour

 

[Yom]

note: unfortunately it is now very late here, and i need to go to bed. I'd love to take this up again at another hour

Okay, I'll address your post, but I won't expect a response for some time.

a) Not unequal, just focusing on different roles ie one as the source of creation, one as the means of creation, one as creation taking place.
I once heard creation described as the speaking of a word - the father being the mouth, the spirit as the breath, the word itself being Christ (fitting with the opening to John's gospel - in the beginning was the word. The word was God and the word was with God). Don't think about the particulars of the metaphor too much - just pointing out that all three elements serve a vital purpose.

I meant unequal as in: not the same thing. Jesus can save humanity from sins (something which the father cannot do), yet only the Father can create. I still don't get what the Holy Spirit's role is. Please elaborate. An example of a work done by each part of the trinity would be helpful.

b) The holy spirit, as far as I can work out, it God acting in and through creation, be it dramatically like the Acts account of pentecost, or more subtly in the lives of individuals as they seek to understand God.

If creation is the Father's role, then where exactly does the Holy Spirit fit in? Is the Holy Spirit sort of like a minion that does the dirty work (e.g. going back to your speaking metaphor, the father speaks or decides to do something, which the Holy Spirit carries out)? Or is it actually the Holy Spirit that does the acts and creation, whereas the Father does something else?

c) If you recall my earlier post, I said there were two fundamentals - the reality of father, son and spirit, and the necessity of Christs death and resurrection. Those are the unchangable elements. The way it works we will not necessarily know, but are called to try and work out... that is what faith is - engaging with our creator, using our hearts, soul and god given minds to grapple with the extraordinary. I actually don't think that God really cares whether we personally believe in the pre-eminance of one or the other members of the trinity - as long as we believe, and are committed to bringing about the good news of love, life and community that the trinity embodies.

Yes, but then Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christians.

 

[Birdjaguar]

a) Not unequal, just focusing on different roles ie one as the source of creation, one as the means of creation, one as creation taking place.
I once heard creation described as the speaking of a word - the father being the mouth, the spirit as the breath, the word itself being Christ (fitting with the opening to John's gospel - in the beginning was the word. The word was God and the word was with God). Don't think about the particulars of the metaphor too much - just pointing out that all three elements serve a vital purpose.

b) The holy spirit, as far as I can work out, it God acting in and through creation, be it dramatically like the Acts account of pentecost, or more subtly in the lives of individuals as they seek to understand God.

c) If you recall my earlier post, I said there were two fundamentals - the reality of father, son and spirit, and the necessity of Christs death and resurrection. Those are the unchangable elements. The way it works we will not necessarily know, but are called to try and work out... that is what faith is - engaging with our creator, using our hearts, soul and god given minds to grapple with the extraordinary. I actually don't think that God really cares whether we personally believe in the pre-eminance of one or the other members of the trinity - as long as we believe, and are committed to bringing about the good news of love, life and community that the trinity embodies.

note: unfortunately it is now very late here, and i need to go to bed. I'd love to take this up again at another hour

Nice post.

 

[Yom]

...and indeed that is the way it will remain for everyone until death.

I like to assume that nothing is permanently outside of my comprehension, provided that I spend enough time on it.

One thing that I have noticed throughout this thread, Yom, is that you are taking everything excessively literally/physically. You have also used nothing but common sense. These are things that we, as humans, use to provide strong arguements amongst ourselves. In this case, you have to be flexible.

I'm not taking everything literally. I'm just pointing out the implications of statements that the posters might not realize. If those implications are actually correct in what the trinity is, then so be it.

I know other people here have already used analogies to use for thinking about the Trinity, but think of it as a tri-way Venn diagram. They are all connected, but still separate. They are all within eachother, but still outside of eachother. It makes sense when you look at it on paper, but it doesn't make sense when you look at it in numbers (that is, 1 is 1, 3 is 3, 1 is 3, 3 is 1). Do you catch the my drift? Separate but equal.

Ah, but you still don't say which part is God. Is it the intersection of the three circles, the totality of the three spheres, or the totality of the three spheres and everything else? Also, doesn't the intersection of the three mean that they share functions? I thought that the three parts are supposed to have completely separate abilities.

If you want to understand God and all of his/her/its workings, don't think like a human.

To be honest, I'm not trying to understand God, but the Christian concept of Trinity. As to not thinking like a human, what exactly would that entail, then?

 

[Uiler]

Incidentally, this is related to the main issue Mohammad had with Christianity judging by the Koran - actually, it's practically the only issue. He loathed the Trinity ("do not say 'Three'") esp. "the Son" bit. He saw it as a form of idol worship. This is also true of the Christian saints. He saw them (and the notion of Jesus as the Son of God) as nothing more than gods that men had elevated. Inferior to God of course but still gods. He mocked people who prayed to Christian saints and to Jesus. Basically, he believed that Christianity was really a form of polytheism (even if they refused to admit it).

"Say: 'Pray if you will to those whom you deify besides Him (the allusion is to saint worship). They cannot relieve your distress, nor can they change it.'"

"Such was Jesus son of Mary. That is the whole truth, which they still doubt. God forbid that He Himself should beget a son! When He decrees such a thing He need only say: 'Be,' and it is.”"

"People of the Book (Christians), do not trangress the bounds of your religion. Speak nothing but the truth about God. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was no more than God's apostle and His Word which He cast to Mary: a spirit from Him. So believe in God and His apostles and do not say: 'Three'. Forbear, and it shall be better for you. God is but one God. God forbid that He should have a son! His is all that the heavens and earth contain. God is the all-sufficient protector. The Messiah does not disdain to be a servant of God, nor do the angels who are nearest to Him. Those who through arrogance disdain His service shall be brought before Him."

"Then God will say: 'Jesus son of Mary, did you ever say to mankind: “Worship me and my mother as gods besides God?”'

'Glory be to You,' he will answer, 'I could never have claimed what I have no right to. If I had ever said so, You would have surely known it. You know what is in my mind, but I know not what is in Yours. You alone know what is hidden. I told them only what You bade me. I said: “Serve God, my Lord and your Lord.” I watched over them while living in their midst, and ever since You took me to Yourself, You have been watching them. You are the witness of all things. If You punish them, they surely are Your servants; and if You forgive them, surely You are mighty and wise.'"

In a way one could say that Mohammad was trying to "reform" Christianity of what he saw as dangerous idol worship

 

[CivCynic]

I like to assume that nothing is permanently outside of my comprehension, provided that I spend enough time on it.

I sincerely hate to say it, but tough.

I'm not taking everything literally.

So the three parts of the trinity are unequal even though they are all a part of God?

Ahem?

An apple is not a being, though. It is a fruit.

Ahem?

I'm just pointing out the implications of statements that the posters might not realize. If those implications are actually correct in what the trinity is, then so be it.

Fair enough.

Ah, but you still don't say which part is God. Is it the intersection of the three circles, the totality of the three spheres, or the totality of the three spheres and everything else?

God is anything and everything of the circles, as such is with the Holy Spirit and the Son. They are each within each other. God is the Holy Spirit/Son, the Holy Spirit is the Son/God/the Father, and the Son is the Holy Spirit/God. Really, the only difference between them is the actual jobs they have. E.g., the Holy Spirit, IMO, is Mother Nature.

Also, doesn't the intersection of the three mean that they share functions? I thought that the three parts are supposed to have completely separate abilities.

Not necessarily. They certainly can share abilities, but they also can have separate meanings in what they do. Again, they are one, but they are also the Trinity.

To be honest, I'm not trying to understand God, but the Christian concept of Trinity.

Fair enough. But in a sense, you are also trying to understand the concept of God itself, which is God in him/her/itself.

As to not thinking like a human, what exactly would that entail, then?

As in thinking logically/rationally.

 

[ybbor]

time to throw my metaphor into the ring...

John is writing a play. John, the writer, writes the script. partway through he decides to write himself into the script (and wanting to show everyone how cool John is, gives John, the charecter, a vast array of superpowers ). John, the charecter is John the writer only as part of the book. Eventually though, John the charecter exits the play for whatever reason. Now since John, the writer, is writing the book, His charecters perform his will, and are guided by him. So john, the spirit, is part of each of his charecters and each of his creations. If you ask John, the person, whther he was himself when he was writing the play, he would say "of course". If you asked him whther the charecter was himself he would say "of course" and if you asked John, the Person whether the charecter's will was part of himself he would say "of course"

I won't insult you're intelligance by telling you who each part of John is

Now let's say that someone has cut off John's arm, and seperated the muscles from the bone from the skin. none of them is John's arm. but together, they are.

 

[Yom]

I sincerely hate to say it, but tough.

I ihave yet to come across anything permanently outside of my comprehension.

Ahem?

Ahem?

Fair enough.

That was not taking things literally (unless you stretch the definition). I was showing the implications that result and showing how the analogy was not apt.

God is anything and everything of the circles, as such is with the Holy Spirit and the Son. They are each within each other. God is the Holy Spirit/Son, the Holy Spirit is the Son/God/the Father, and the Son is the Holy Spirit/God. Really, the only difference between them is the actual jobs they have. E.g., the Holy Spirit, IMO, is Mother Nature.

Fair enough, but I still have two issues with such a description. Firstly, it does not explain the true relationships between the three elements of the trinity (it only explains how they make up God). Secondly, it implies that the concept of God is simply the amalgam of three separate divinities and that there is no single recognizable God that controls everything. It seems a bit polytheistic.

Not necessarily. They certainly can share abilities, but they also can have separate meanings in what they do. Again, they are one, but they are also the Trinity.

I thought the whole point of the trinity was that they are all separate elements of God with different functions?

Fair enough. But in a sense, you are also trying to understand the concept of God itself, which is God in him/her/itself.


As in thinking logically/rationally.

If the trinity is illogical, then so be it, but I will first give Christians the benefit of the doubt by trying to create a logical version of the trinity.

 

[Yom]

time to throw my metaphor into the ring...

John is writing a play. John, the writer, writes the script. partway through he decides to write himself into the script (and wanting to show everyone how cool John is, gives John, the charecter, a vast array of superpowers ). John, the charecter is John the writer only as part of the book. Eventually though, John the charecter exits the play for whatever reason. Now since John, the writer, is writing the book, His charecters perform his will, and are guided by him. So john, the spirit, is part of each of his charecters and each of his creations. If you ask John, the person, whther he was himself when he was writing the play, he would say "of course". If you asked him whther the charecter was himself he would say "of course" and if you asked John, the Person whether the charecter's will was part of himself he would say "of course"

I won't insult you're intelligance by telling you who each part of John is

Now let's say that someone has cut off John's arm, and seperated the muscles from the bone from the skin. none of them is John's arm. but together, they are.

Such an analogy works (except for that elusive Holy Spirit, of course), but it implies that there is no one identifiable God, but only different parts of God. When you pray, do you pray to God or to a specific part of the trinity?

Regarding the Holy Spirit, in your play analogy, it would be the fact that John's writing is in each character. In the Bible, however, the Holy Spirit is identified as a very palpable thing, with divine powers, whereas in your play, the Holy Spirit is just the essence of God in everything that He has created.

 

[ybbor]

Such an analogy works (except for that elusive Holy Spirit, of course), but it implies that there is no one identifiable God, but only different parts of God. When you pray, do you pray to God or to a specific part of the trinity?

Regarding the Holy Spirit, in your play analogy, it would be the fact that John's writing is in each character. In the Bible, however, the Holy Spirit is identified as a very palpable thing, with divine powers, whereas in your play, the Holy Spirit is just the essence of God in everything that He has created.

yeah, while that analogy does a good job expalining Jesus and the Father, it doesn't work too well for the Holy spirit (peraps someone with a bit better understanding of the holy spirit can improve it?). It does create a bit too strong a writer John, and too weak a holy spirit.

now I'm no expert in prayer, so what I'm saying may be compltely wrong, so don't take it as basis for argument in anything, and iof someone more versed in prayer wants to correct me, go ahead. But i would assume You generally pra to God the whole; and pray to the specific parts when a specific part of God fufils the prayer.

 

[Dida]

Christianity does seem like a pagan/polytheistic religion to me. They worship 3 gods, (2 really), the 'holy spook' hardly counts as a gawd. They used this trinity bullcr@p to disguise the fact that they are worshipping more than 1 god.

 

[Yom]

yeah, while that analogy does a good job expalining Jesus and the Father, it doesn't work too well for the Holy spirit (peraps someone with a bit better understanding of the holy spirit can improve it?). It does create a bit too strong a writer John, and too weak a holy spirit.

now I'm no expert in prayer, so what I'm saying may be compltely wrong, so don't take it as basis for argument in anything, and iof someone more versed in prayer wants to correct me, go ahead. But i would assume You generally pra to God the whole; and pray to the specific parts when a specific part of God fufils the prayer.

Most of my problems lie with the Holy Spirit, to be honest. Maybe Plotinus can help us out when he finds this thread.

Right now, I can't discuss for a bit more. I've got to study for my AP Biology Exam.

 

[Uiler]

Don't worry Yom. The Trinity seems to confuse and annoy a lot of people. In fact that seems to be the default reaction. One guy got so pissed off with it he went and founded his own religion which will soon become the largest religion in the world My personal opinion. Christianity like all of the world's major religions shows a great ability to adapt. In China, Buddhism incorporated pre-existing religions concepts so you have one of the major the Boddhivsta turning into the Goddess of Mercy (who used to be a princess according to legend) talking merryilly with the Taoist Jade Emperor. Also the Buddhist Hell suddenly became a Chinese bureaucracy. Now Christianity as it spread simply incorporated the pre-existing religions into it. The cities in Asia Minor wanted Earth Mother worship. Hello, Virgin Mary. People seem to naturally like polytheism - esp. since polytheism was the normal state of religion in the most of the converted areas for thousands of years. Hello, Jesus son of God, the Trinity which is three gods (but not really) and saints. Rome becomes the centre of Christianity. Roman festivals become Christian festivals and the former head of the Roman religion and all his traditions ie. the Pontifus Maximus becomes the Pope. Things they want to stamp out e.g. druid and nature worship in Europe suddenly become signs of the devil and the female followers of the old ways are burnt as witches. A supposedly monotheistic religion actually polytheistic? Well, look at Taoism in China. The philosophy despises rituals, saints and gods yet religious Taoism has to be one of the most heavily ritualised religions in the world and is full of saints. The Chinese population wanted magic and exorcisms and protection against evil spirits - ergo rituals. They are used to praying to the spirits of the dead - ergo Taoist saints. That's my explanation of the Trinity.