About the Trinity

[inJESUS]

yes sure Pro, what appears to be a contradiction satisfies you…this says it all and speaks a lot about your agenda here…nice try but your intentions are now clear to all.

When you can think about God without falling into paradoxes, then rest assured you are not speaking about God but about a human projection of what God is.

 

[pro_universal]

yes sure Pro, what appears to be a contradiction satisfies you…this says it all and speaks a lot about your agenda here…nice try but your intentions are now clear to all.

When you can think about God without falling into paradoxes, then rest assured you are not speaking about God but about a human projection of what God is.

Why exactly must any thinking about God be paradoxical???

 

[inJESUS]

**Considering that a contradiction is precisely an appearance, yes, that’s what matters. **

the Allah of the Quran said a thousand time I am one! i am one! yet he comes and say “we” and “us”.

Either Allah is " I" or Allah is “WE”…this is a contradiction right? am sure you’ll jump now and analyze this contradiction by using all kinds of human logic ( royal we ecc ecc) because it CAN’T be a contradiction even if it “appears” to be so. But when it comes to the Trinity, your agenda betrays you :yup:

 

[pro_universal]

the Allah of the Quran said a thousand time I am one! i am one! yet he comes and say “we” and “us”.

Either Allah is " I" or Allah is “WE”…this is a contradiction right? am sure you’ll jump now and analyze this contradiction by using all kinds of human logic ( royal we ecc ecc) because it CAN’T be a contradiction even if it “appears” to be so. But when it comes to the Trinity, your agenda betrays you :yup:

Uh, no, this isn’t a contradiction. Even apparent. Using different words to refer to the self is a well understood linguistic device. I have no idea why this is even a minor issue. It is not any kind of contradiction, paradox, or anything else like it…I really find it puzzling that you’ve even mentioned this as a “paradox.”

A king saying “We do not wish to do this or that” is not speaking in contradictions. The pronoun used in a language (in this context) does not, logically or linguistically, require that the speaker be any particular thing.

 

[inJESUS]

Uh, no, this isn’t a contradiction. Even apparent. Using different words to refer to the self is a well understood linguistic device. I have no idea why this is even a minor issue.

A king saying “We do not wish to do this or that” is not speaking in contradictions. The pronoun used in a language (in this context) does not, logically or linguistically, require that the speaker be any particular thing.

 

[tequilamac]

Why exactly must any thinking about God be paradoxical???

Good heavens man, are you serious? It is paradoxical BECAUSE THE HUMAN BRAIN CANNOT FULLY COMPREHEND GOD AT ANY ONE TIME.

I thought we established that already. We can comprehend Aristotle and Plato and their first mover/ causes philosophies etc. Absolutely it does not take genius to understand philosophy. But the study of God is not a philosophical undertaking it is a theological undertaking. You have set out to understand that which is not fully understandable by a human being and the only way it can be done is by including paradoxes in the discussion. Does not matter if it is Judaism, or Islam or Catholicism. It all must be approached through paradox.

 

[pro_universal]

Good heavens man, are you serious? It is paradoxical BECAUSE THE HUMAN BRAIN CANNOT FULLY COMPREHEND GOD AT ANY ONE TIME.

Okay, well, unfortunately, that’s not a contradiction. Saying that something is unknown or unknowable is not even remotely contradictory, nor is it “paradoxical” (ie, apparently contradictory.) So as incredulous as you are, this is actually a non-issue.

You have set out to understand that which is not fully understandable by a human being and the only way it can be done is by including paradoxes in the discussion. Does not matter if it is Judaism, or Islam or Catholicism. It all must be approached through paradox.

Again, saying that something cannot be understood is not a paradox. I can’t think of an infinite set of numbers and maintain every integer in my head, but that doesn’t make it contradictory to speak of an infinite series. The same is true for this.

I think you are confused. You do not understand the difference between “uncertain or unknown” and “contradictory.” They are not the same thing. And neither is an “apparent contradiction” something that is simply unknown.

 

[Northwind]

Again, saying that something cannot be understood is not a paradox. I can’t think of an infinite set of numbers and maintain every integer in my head, but that doesn’t make it contradictory to speak of an infinite series. The same is true for this.
Using that logic you should have no problem with at least seeing the concept of the trinity in scripture as presented here on this thread. People have given concrete verses which say specifically that the Father is God, Jesus is God and the Holy Spirit is God and yet there is only one God.

 

[pro_universal]

Northwind:

Using that logic you should have no problem with at least seeing the concept of the trinity in scripture as presented here on this thread. People have given concrete verses which say specifically that the Father is God, Jesus is God and the Holy Spirit is God and yet there is only one God.

Yes, I see the concept in scripture. But to me, the presence of this concept is a count against the truth of the scriptures. Why would God reveal to us scriptures that demand belief in a contradictory theology?

I just can’t believe God would make salvation depend in any way on a belief that reason says is contradictory.

 

[Northwind]

I just can’t believe God would make salvation depend in any way on a belief that reason says is contradictory.

If water, which is the simplest compound in nature can exist as a trinity, why not God? Water isn’t a difficult concept to grasp nor is it a contradiction. God is infinate but His nature as revealed to us in scripture is as a triune being. Water, as is God, is very reasonable. Hope that makes sense.

 

[pro_universal]

If water, which is the simplest compound in nature can exist as a trinity, why not God? Water isn’t a difficult concept to grasp nor is it a contradiction.

Water isn’t a trinity. Three things making up a whole doesn’t make a trinity.

God is infinate but His nature as revealed to us in scripture is as a triune being. Water, as is God, is very reasonable. Hope that makes sense.

I understand what you’re trying to say, but I personally don’t agree with the comparison you’re making.

 

[inJESUS]

if the scriptures say the Father has a Word and a Spirit, does the Father=Word=Spirit as “persons” or “entities” ? no.

Does the Father=Word=Spirit in essence? yes because the Father and His Word and His Spirit are eternal.

Where is the contradiction?

Pro?

 

[Northwind]

Water isn’t a trinity. Three things making up a whole doesn’t make a trinity.

Sure it is. As discussed above, water is expressed three ways, yet in every instance it is as to its nature, H2O. Other analogies IMHO don’t make the same arguement, like eggs…being a shell, egg white and a yolk, all three elements make up the one egg. But here the shell, white and yolk are not made up of the same substance, water is. Also, water can and does exist in all three forms simultaneously in nature as well in the laboratory as an experiment called the Triple Point of Water. thanks

 

[pro_universal]

Pro?

I’m not sure what you’re asking.

This:

if the scriptures say the Father has a Word and a Spirit, does the Father=Word=Spirit as “persons” or “entities” ? no.

Does the Father=Word=Spirit in essence? yes because the Father and His Word and His Spirit are eternal.

Is exactly the same thing as described in the statement by exoflare.

The problem is that the Father=the Essence, yet the Father does not=the Word or the Spirit.

The identity and distinction makes the contradiction, not the word “essence” or “nature” or “person.”

The attempts to resolve this by talking about personhood are bound for failure. If you think of personhood as adding something that distinguishes each person from the others, then no person in the trinity is fully God (since there is also the “person” part in addition to the God part). And if you think of personhood as adding nothing, then you reduce the three persons to the status of three different words used to describe the exact same being. And that wouldn’t be a trinity, but rather, three words describing one God.

 

[pro_universal]

Sure it is. As discussed above, water is expressed three ways, yet in every instance it is as to its nature, H2O.

I don’t see how that makes the same argument. There is a distinct, physical difference between different states of water (steam is not the same as ice-it is excited by more energy). And there aren’t just three states of matter…but

Other analogies IMHO don’t make the same arguement, like eggs…being a shell, egg white and a yolk, all three elements make up the one egg. But here the shell, white and yolk are not made up of the same substance, water is. Also, water can and does exist in all three forms simultaneously in nature as well in the laboratory as an experiment called the Triple Point of Water. thanks

Again, this isn’t really an accurate comparison. “Is water” describes a class of things. The logic of this works because there is no one “water” being that all molecules of water must be equal to, and because for all the different states of water, something different is added that makes the state distinct: like heat to make steam, or whatever is added in the lab to produce the triple point of water.

There is not a “God archetype” for which multiple instantiations of Gods may exist; the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit each have to be the full God individually while not being identical to each other in trinitarian thought. And if, like water, you have to add something to make the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit distinct…then no single person is fully God, since there is something on top of the God-nature that makes each person different.

 

[Angelos]

I don’t see how that makes the same argument. There is a distinct, physical difference between different states of water (steam is not the same as ice-it is excited by more energy). And there aren’t just three states of matter…but

Again, this isn’t really an accurate comparison. “Is water” describes a class of things. The logic of this works because there is no one “water” being that all molecules of water must be equal to, and because for all the different states of water, something different is added that makes the state distinct: like heat to make steam, or whatever is added in the lab to produce the triple point of water.

There is not a “God archetype” for which multiple instantiations of Gods may exist; the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit each have to be the full God individually while not being identical to each other in trinitarian thought. And if, like water, you have to add something to make the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit distinct…then no single person is fully God, since there is something on top of the God-nature that makes each person different.

We believers in the Trinity should give you unbelievers a special course on the notion of analogies! You seem to forget that an analogy is not the same as something described. The way you react to our analogies reminds me of a pathetic Franciscan community that blamed a poor Fransican priest for likening God to rubbish when he gave the pitchfork as an example of a three-dimensional GOD.

Your problem stems from the fact that WE do not mean a PERSON when we say GOD, but the divine essence and nature shared by the three distinct but equal persons. The time is past, present, and future; but the notion is ONE.

Peace and wisdom to you from your friend Angelos

 

[JimG]

The attempts to resolve this by talking about personhood are bound for failure. If you think of personhood as adding something that distinguishes each person from the others, then no person in the trinity is fully God (since there is also the “person” part in addition to the God part). And if you think of personhood as adding nothing, then you reduce the three persons to the status of three different words used to describe the exact same being. And that wouldn’t be a trinity, but rather, three words describing one God.

Do you accept the idea that God in his one divine nature is a spirit, and thus can have no parts?

Personhood is not some “thing” added to a being, but rather the self-expression of a being. That is the case even for humans, who are a composite of body and soul, material and immaterial.

It is even more true of God, who has no material whatsoever, and no parts.

You do not understand how the Persons of the Trinity can be distinct if they are consubstantial—one in Being, as they in fact are. They are distinct precisely in their personhood. And personhood is not a separate entity, not an addition to being, but an expression of the one divine nature.

You may not accept this. It is one thing not to accept it; but it is quite another thing to tell God that his nature cannot be expressed in three persons if he has revealed otherwise.

Another consideration:
Does God know Himself?
If God knows Himself, does he know himself perfectly?
Is there anything in God’s knowledge of himself that is missing, including personhood?

Christians believe that God does know himself perfectly, and “speaks” himself perfectly.
St. John in his gospel calls this the Word.

“In the beginning was the Word,
And the Word was with God,
And the Word was God.”

 

[pro_universal]

Do you accept the idea that God in his one divine nature is a spirit, and thus can have no parts?

Personhood is not some “thing” added to a being, but rather the self-expression of a being. That is the case even for humans, who are a composite of body and soul, material and immaterial.

It is even more true of God, who has no material whatsoever, and no parts.

You do not understand how the Persons of the Trinity can be distinct if they are consubstantial—one in Being, as they in fact are. They are distinct precisely in their personhood. And personhood is not a separate entity, not an addition to being, but an expression of the one divine nature.

If personhood is just an expression, then how can there be any distinction between the persons? What is an “expression” such that it results in a distinct person, who is clearly not the other persons sharing the same substance?

This line of reasoning conflates the persons. It turns “distinct” into something that means “all exactly the same except for the way we describe the apparition”, in which case you don’t have a trinity at all, but rather One God whom you want to give three different names for different apparitions. And given the number of apparitions, three is certainly arbitrary…if it’s just a new expression that makes a person, why not make a holy quartet using the burning bush?

You may not accept this. It is one thing not to accept it; but it is quite another thing to tell God that his nature cannot be expressed in three persons if he has revealed otherwise.

Well, if you want to believe it because it’s revealed, that’s perfectly fine, but it doesn’t make the doctrine logical. I do not believe that a revelation from God would contain something that no human mind can ever conclude is logical, but if you want to, that’s certainly grounds for believing in the trinity.

 

[JimG]

Well, the fact that I am a human person who possesses a human nature does not make me two beings rather than one. My personhood reveals who I am, but it cannot exist without being rooted in a human nature, which reveals what I am.

If you think that personhood must necessarily entail a separate entity, then non-personal entities like rocks, would be one being, but personal entities like people would necessarily be two beings, not one. And God, by the fact of possessing personhood, would be two beings, not one. But in fact, God’s possession of personhood does not result in his becoming two beings by the mere fact of his personhood.

Likewise, I believe that God possesses the faculties of intellect and free will. Having these faculties does not multiply him, and more than having similar faculties multiplies me.

I would advise you to do some reading in Aristotelian or Thomistic metaphysics, but I rather think your mind is closed on the subject of the Trinity.

 

[JoshuaJ]

Greetings,

The Trinity is a mystery of the faith. You get hints of the Trinity in the Old Testament. For example in Genesis, you see God’s spirit over the waters. There is talk of God as Father, and there is talk of the Wisdom of God.

In the New Testament, the nature of God is revealed in its fullness. The Bible is God’s self-revelation in the incarnation. God is Father, Son (the Word, or Wisdom of God), and Holy Spirit. They are three distinct persons, but they have one nature.

How can this be? Well, one big hint is that human beings were created in the image and likeness of God. This has to be our starting point to understand the Trinity, because no other created being was made in His own image.

But here is where the mystery really kicks in. Human beings are finite. We have a body that came from our parents, that had a beginning, and grows old and dies. God is Eternal, he is Infinite, and so if God had a body, it would fill everything. We would be somehow living in, or a part of this massive blob god, or jelly God. If you believe that, you are a pantheist. But as Christians, we believe that God is the creator of heaven and earth. He is not heaven and earth.

So for the sake of continuing this argument, let’s cross out the idea that God has a body and senses, like us. (Also setting aside the incarnation for the moment.)

What is left? Well, human beings have something that animals don’t have. We have a memory, and an intellect, and we have a will.

Our memory is kind of a repository of all that we have been. Our intellect is our active thinking about things. We can think about the past, the present, and the future. And we can also will things, and do things, like write an email, build a church, help our neighbor.

Memory, intellect, and will are not corporeal things. They are spiritual. (Some people will argue that all we are is contained in our brain, but that is another controversy we don’t need to get into right now.) Memory, intellect, and will also sum up who we are as embodied persons. One person, has these three faculties, or operations.

Now apply these three things to God. God is infinite and eternal, therefore His memory contains past, present, future all at once. God must know himself. He must be self-aware, if he is like us, therefore he must have an intellect, and that intellect must be eternal. And if he also knows himself, he must also have a will. This will is God’s love.

Again, this analogy can only take us so far, because we are finite and God is infinite. But if God created us in our image, then God the Father could be like our memory, God the Son, could be like our intellect, because he is the word of God, the self-expression of God, the self-revelation of God. And God the Father and God the Son love one another. They are a communion of persons. And that love is so infinite and eternal that it becomes the third person of the Trinity: the Holy Spirit. And that is how we have one God (nature) and three persons (operations).

All of this is speculation based on the revelation of scripture and the teaching of the church. It is a mystery that cannot be approached with science. It is only hinted at by nature, and most clearly in human nature.

Hope this helps.

God bless.

It is commonly said the trinity is a mystery, but Romans 1:20 says “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.”

We are the things that are made. The Word says the Godhead is clearly understood by the things that are made(us). The trinity is not understood because it is man-made.