Difficulties with the Trinity Doctrine.

[bmonk]

I’m not trying to convince or argue, but I’ve had a thought from reading the defenders of the Trinity in this thread and decided to share.

God’s name is YAHWEH translated means the one who is Eternal - who always existed, always exists, and always will exist. This is from the name God has spoken of Himself and given Moses at the burning bush “I AM WHO I AM.”

God is the one who breathes the eternal soul into man in Genesis. Thus, He shares his “Existence” as he has with us, the Angles and all that “is”, but I’m thinking that he has/does/will do forever and more perfectly shared this total Godliness in the three Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

The totality of this shared equality in Existence and Power and Knowledge except when purposely suspended by their own infinite ability by choice results in each of them being all that God is in three persons where none was before another nor did any one choose to make the others, but each are all God and the three are of one perfect whole Godly oneness.

So, I’m not confounded that there is more than one person in the God head, but maybe a small question in my limited head remains, why not infinite persons of God?, but I am guessing that somehow they picked the right number not I.

The Trinity is one of those mysteries we can only really understand (to the very limited extent that we can understand!) based on revelation. How can one God be more than one Person? What are those Persons like? What roles do they have?

Thus, the doctrines of the Trinity are rooted in revelation even more closely than sometimes happens with our understanding. The reason we believe in three Persons in God is because that is what revelation tells us: The unoriginate Creator and Father of all, the Word of Love expressed by the Father, that is, the only begotten Son, and the Spirit of Love that unites them and overflows with love, flooding all of creation. If there are other Persons in God, we have not experienced them.

 

[D_Martin]

So, I’m not confounded that there is more than one person in the God head, but maybe a small question in my limited head remains, why not infinite persons of God?, but I am guessing that somehow they picked the right number not I.

Creation knows its Creator and Judge by His Word in His Presence, in His creation. The Lord God was in the mist of the Children of Israel back in Moses’ day, and where getting to know the Lord their God. By His Word in His Presence with them. No other nation of people has experienced this. Hence Word and Presence of God the Creator and Judge, one not without the other, and His Word is Lord.

It should be noted that the “three persons” and “trinity” are reference to a theology, but “three persons” and “trinity” are not found in the NT.

 

[awatkins69]

Hi JK,

From the earliest times of the Church people have recognized Jesus Christ as Lord (see e.g. biblical historian Larry Hurtado’s work) and have recognized a Trinity of persons (see for example here), albeit not in the fully developed and expounded sense set out by the Church later. I’ll try to answer some of your questions to the best of my ability. I think many of your questions are deep philosophical questions, and one could go into much more depth in answering them. But a lot of things can be cleared up just by explaining the teachings of the Church on these issues more clearly. This post was too long originally so I’ve split it into two parts.

My issues (some with related verses):

1. There is only one god. The father is God. Jesus is the Son, not the father. If the father is God how can two other persons (Jesus and the Holy Spirit) also be God? (1 Cor 8:6, Eph 4:6)

Because they all share one and the same ‘nature’. Saying Jesus is God is similar to saying awatkins is human. For instance, if I say, awatkins is human and JK is human, it clearly does not follow that awatkins is JK. It is clearly consistent to say awatkins is not JK even though we are both human. Similarly when we say that Jesus is God. The ‘is’ here is not one of strict identity or the equal sign ‘=’; rather it is one of ‘predication’, where we attribute the same nature to more than one thing. Now, we Catholics also think that the unity of the persons is more than simply the unity you and I have in sharing the same human nature, but this is a very complex issue. It has satisfying solutions in my opinion but it would take us beyond the range of your question.

1. Jesus prays to God. I know this is a common argument, but I have never heard a good refutation for it.

The problem is that this does not contradict what the Trinitarian dogmas says. First of all, even we can pray to particular persons of the Trinity without praying to the others. Just because I am praying to the Father I need not be simultaneously praying to the Son. Similarly for Jesus. Moreover, the Church teaches that Jesus had two minds, a human mind and a divine mind. It is in his human mind that he is thinking the prayers and offering them up to God (presumably God the Father, who is his Father both as creator of his humanity as well as generator of his divinity).

1. Jesus is the Mediator between man and God. (1 Tim 2:5). A mediator by definition is a third party.

Jesus is mediator in the sense that he is both human and divine, and thus is a pathway between both worlds. He is also mediator in that he brings us the Good News. This doesn’t contradict the doctrine of the Trinity in any way, which just says that all three persons of the Trinity fully share in the divine nature. Also, strictly speaking Christ is a third party, since he is not literally identical (’=’) to God in the sense of absolute sameness.

1. Jesus is not equal to the father. (John 8:54 and 14:28). If the father and son are both God, how can they not be equal?

Jesus is not equal only in the sense that the Father produces the Son. So the Father is causally prior, i.e. prior to the Son in his being, and the Son is later or posterior in his being. But they have all the same essential characteristics and features of divinity, so they are both equal in majesty and perfection. Thus they are still equally God.

1. (Related to 4) The father has greater knowledge than Jesus does. (Mark 13.32). If they are both God, why do they not have equal knowledge?

First, Jesus could be ignorant in his human mind alone. However, we can (and should) interpret such passages as not implying Jesus was ignorant in any way about a fact concerning the future. St. Augustine points out that in certain passages like in Genesis 22, where God says to Abraham ‘now I know that you fear God’, clearly this cannot mean God learned something he had not known prior. So in this case it is really saying something more like ‘now I reveal that you fear God.’ Similarly we should interpret the apparent ascription of ignorance to Christ as really saying that only the Father will reveal the unknown time.

1. (Related to 4 and 5) Jesus was not on his own mission, but the mission of the father. He came to do his father’s will, not his own. (John 7:16 and John 14:10). He is obedient to the father, but he is following a plan that was not of his design.

Again, the Church teaches that Christ had two wills, one human and one divine. In fact, passages like these were used as proof against the monothelite heresy which stated that Christ only had one will. In his humanity Christ is disinclined toward suffering and death, but nonetheless his human will is obedient to the will of his Father.

 

[awatkins69]

1. Prior to the resurrection, the disciples did not seem to think of Jesus as God. After the resurrection, they seemed to have an even higher opinion of Jesus than before, but I am still not sure that they ever believed that he was God.

Well, for one, as I pointed out above most of the earliest Church Fathers, the Apostolic Fathers, acknowledged Christ as being God and Lord. It is unlikely that the apostles did not believe this also, otherwise why would the Apostolic Fathers who learned from them believe it? Moreover, St. Thomas refers to Jesus as Lord and God (John 20:28), as do St. Paul (Titus 2:13) and St. Peter (2 Peter 1:1). Finally, the Scriptures describe all the disciples worshiping him in Luke 24:52.

These verses and arguments just have to do with the disciples themselves and thus may not seem overwhelming (though still quite strong in my opinion). But we should expect that the disciples would not come to fully realize what was going on around them; there are many instances in the Gospels where they are clearly not fully aware of the theological implications of Christ’s words and actions until the end, and this is because they were 1st-century Jews to whom the idea of a divine, incarnate, dying, and rising messiah was foreign. The real proof comes from Jesus himself, both in what he said concerning himself, the Father and the Holy Ghost, and in that he did things which only could be done by God himself.

Acts 3:13-15 states that God, not Jesus himself, raised Jesus from the dead.

When the word ‘God’ is used in Scripture it refers to the Trinity of persons acting all together in one divine substance/nature. Strictly speaking Jesus is not absolutely identical to the Trinity, he is only absolutely identical to one of the persons. So the verse is saying that God, the whole Trinity, raised Jesus from the dead. This is consistent with Jesus being one of the Trinitarian persons.

1 John 4:12 states that no one has seen God. If Jesus is God, how is this possible?

One, less plausible interpretation, is to take St. John as meaning literally that nobody has seen God with their eyes or senses. But I think St. John should be interpreted as talking about a mere human, and saying that no mere human has seen God. After all, if we interpret this completely strictly and meaning that absolutely no one has seen God, it would mean even God has not seen God!

I know there are a lot of issues here. If anyone can address any or all of them, it would be greatly appreciated. This is a troubling issue for me. I am looking for help, not an argument.
Thanks,
JK

Hope this is helpful JK. If you would really like to get into a lot more detail please PM me or e-mail me. I’m studying philosophy in school and I can say for sure that of all the problems raised in philosophy this issue raises some of the most difficult ones. But I am convinced that the Church’s doctrine is quite coherent, and in fact that it is the most biblically, theologically, and philosophically sound of all the alternatives.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Humans make mistakes, of course they do, but if, using logic, something turns out to be a contradiction, it is a contradiction until proved it isn’t. So, the Trinity entails a contradiction just as clearly as a square circle.

And that by using logic, the wolrd was believed to be flat is false. the world was perceived flat by (erroneous) observation, not by logic.

We can only know that a contradiction exists when we fully grasp what is involved in the ideas that appear to be at odds. We do not understand God fully, so we categorically cannot declare the idea of Trinity to be a contradiction precisely because we do not have full knowledge of the terms.

By the way, it is nonsense to say “…it is a contradiction until proved it isn’t.” If even the possibility exists that it could be proved otherwise, then patently no contradiction exists.

 

[levinas12]

The Trinity is usually explained in terms of Greek philosophical concepts with one big exception: the notion of PERSON. Aristotle did not use this notion which came on the philosophical stage precisely as a result of Christian theological speculation about the Trinity.

So now we have to reach an understanding of the Trinity in terms of (1) Aristotle’s concept of “primary substance” and (2) the Christian notion of “person”.

And this is where it gets interesting.

An example of “primary substance” is “this tree”, a concrete particular entity (not a “form” or a “nature” in which many particulars can “participate” but an actual “this”). What “this” means is that there is only one divine intellect and one divine will, because there is only one divine “primary substance”.

This intellect and will is numerically the same in the 3 Divine Persons. They do not each have their own divine intellect and divine will.

Let’s put aside for a moment the theological “fact” that Jesus also has a human nature, i.e., a human intellect and a human will in addition to the numerically identifical divine intellect and divine will in the Son, Father, Holy Spirit.

A human person has her/his own intellect and will. And this intellect and will is numerically different than the intellect and will in another human person.

But this does not true of the Trinitarian Persons.

How is this possible? The key here is a proper understanding of “person”. And specifically, an understanding of the Trinitarian “person” as a “subsistent relation”. The Son is the Son only in relation to the Father, and the Father is the Father only in relation to the Son, and the Holy Spirit is the Holy Spirit only in relation to the Father and the Son.

Human persons do not have this special type of relationality. And remember that Jesus is not a human “person” although He has a human “form” or “nature”. Jesus is a Divine Person only - not both a human person and a divine person.

In this discussion, it’s crucial to keep “person” and “substance” distinct from each other.

So what, or more precisely, who is the “person”?

“Person” is over and above the “form” or the “nature”. We all have the same “human form or nature”. But, as persons, we are radically different. So radically different that “person” is not defined by a genus and specific difference. There is no “form” that provides “specificity” to a “person” - there is no “form” of “john doe” precisely as “john doe” - there is a “form” that defines “john doe” as a human being, but not as “john doe”.

It is this “pure” difference allows for a reality like the Trinity. On the one hand, a primary substance, a “this”, in Greek, a “tode ti” - e.g., “this tree”, “this rock”, etc. But, on the other hand, 3 persons, each a “singularity”, a totally unique “relation” to one another over and above the primary substance.

And this “relation” is one of “love” (now I have opened up another intriguing topic - for another thread perhaps).

As you can see, I disagree with those who argue the Trinity is an opaque mystery that we cannot really talk about - on the contrary, there’s a lot to say, a lot to clarify - let’s keep the conversation going.

 

[levinas12]

Just to follow up the previous posting:

Matter, as classically defined in Aristotle, cannot account for the singularity of the “person”.

Matter is associated with spatial/temporal “thisness” but “person” transcends “individuality” in the narrow sense of a simple spatial/temporal “definiteness”.

To put it another way - the specificity of “John Doe” as “person” is much more than the Aristotelian “categorical” accidents of location, quantity, quality, etc.

 

[wmw]

Creation knows its Creator and Judge by His Word in His Presence, in His creation. The Lord God was in the mist of the Children of Israel back in Moses’ day, and where getting to know the Lord their God. By His Word in His Presence with them. No other nation of people has experienced this. Hence Word and Presence of God the Creator and Judge, one not without the other, and His Word is Lord.

It should be noted that the “three persons” and “trinity” are reference to a theology, but “three persons” and “trinity” are not found in the NT.

This sounds as if you are of the idea that the theology of the Trinity is just a manifestation from human experience beginning with the nation of Israel and perpetuated by Jesus and the Voice of the Father from the sky and the coming down of the dove at the Baptism of Jesus. I will stick with the idea that the Trinity is true and fully real for all including the three Persons of God and not just a human perception, but thank you for sharing.

 

[wmw]

I’m in agreement that there is much to explore in the doctrine of the Trinity and Aristotle is a great place to start. I say start because the depths are much greater than even great minds like his has plumbed; so, I also agree that much will remain a mystery for all our limited minds.

In the face of such vastness it can seem too much to go on and this is the great mistake too often made. Even in my life I’ve put it off too much; so, in my own error I know from which much of this resistance and putting aside of this doctrine comes. God help and Bless us all!

 

[mcrts]

I have heard it explained this way:

God the Father is the Lover.
God the Son is the Beloved.
God the Holy Spirit is the love that results.

Granted, it is a simple concept. But if we proclaim God is Love and love is selfless, then love can only come into fruit if there is someone to give it to. Jesus is the result of the Father’s love for us. He responds to the love by doing the most unselfish thing that anyone can do: laying down his life for us.

The Divinity of Christ is also another mystery. “Jesus was inspired by God”, “Jesus was an ordinary man, but God’s spirit took over him”, “Jesus was half God, half man” do not explain the Second person of Christ. He is fully God and fully Man. He is not half and half, as that would make him a demigod. He must be mortal so that He is able to be killed and die. Yet, he has to be God because only God can remove sins.

 

[wmw]

A great line from Star Trek referring to J T Kirk, “Behold a god who bleeds!” Thus, exposing him as a non-god. Yet, in our culture we have become accustom to our God who bleeds and dies for our needy little selves.

Jesus is the exact opposite of our natural human expectations of a God. He does this to open our eyes to the more that He is. For instance, Jesus is the ultimate Head of the House hold, a Father and Husband. The One who does battle against the world to defend and protect His bride, the Church, and His children no matter how remotely adopted and no matter the cost even unto death. This is the most complete expression of Manliness and Fatherhood. Truly, He and the Father are one and they send Their Holy Spirit to live in us to build us into His likeness ever growing in the Image They are and we were granted in the beginning and are graced to become further with the help of the advocate of Fatherhood. Also, in the embrace of such complete Manliness femininity in the woman blossoms ever brighter. Therefore no full expression of masculinity ever diminishes femininity, but only lifts it higher.

There are many aspects of how we understand this one God of three and none are fully right nor fully wrong, but many add to the truth if they are views of more of the infinite.

 

[Freekevio]

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. (Gen. 1:1)The word ‘God’ is the Hebrew word ‘elohiym’. Elohiym is the plural form of the word God. It implies unity in plurality.

Psalm 110:1:
The LORD said to my Lord, “Sit at My right hand, till I make Your enemies Your footstool.”

God anoints God in Psalm 45:7:
You love righteousness and hate wickedness; Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You with the oil of gladness more than Your companions.

God is speaking and says He’ll save Israel by the Lord, their God in Hosea 1:7:

Psalm 2 has the trinity in a trilogue, read it and try to recognise who is who.

The OT is all about Jesus. He is the Light before the sun was created. He is the Word who spoke us into existence. The Holy Spirit knitted us together. Look they have become as one of us- about Adam and Eve, Plurality again.
The reason they are 3 in one is that they are in complete Unity.
How could a singular god Love? Love is about relationship.
Real love is so rich that you would want to climb inside the one you love when you love fully. This is how God is. Jesus does step inside his Father but can step out too and we will be able to as well when we go home as the Bride of Jesus
Allelulia

 

[Eric_Hyom]

Freekevio;
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. (Gen. 1:1)The word ‘God’ is the Hebrew word ‘elohiym’. Elohiym is the plural form of the word God. It implies unity in plurality.

Can the greatest commandments possibly describe how Christ is one with the Father? When Jesus spent his time on Earth he would have lived by these commandments,

Jesus loves God the Father with all his heart, soul, mind and strength.
Jesus loves each and every one of us as he loves himself.

Can the greatest commandments describe the love that comes from God the Father?

God the Father loves God the Son, with all his heart, soul, mind and strength.
God the Father loves each and everyone of us as he loves himself.

Can God the Father or Son love us more than they love themselves.

Can the spirit be the power of God’s love working through the greatest commandments?

This passage links the spirit and the greatest commandments…
1 Samuel 18 ( New International Bible )

1 Jonathan became one in spirit with David, and he loved him as himself

Can the trinity possibly hang and depend on the greatest commandments?

Blessings

Eric

---

 

[Freekevio]

Indeed Eric
No we will only understand just how Big and amazing real Love is when we go to Him in Heaven.
I can hardly wait and the only reason I don’t want to be there now is so that I can freely do some more work for him here on this earth first.
Stay Blessed Brother
K

 

[system]

The false doctrine of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit
has no scriptural foundation and is found nowhere in the entire Bible.
Tertullian (210 AD) taught that God was a trinity of three persons and
he was denounced by the true Christians of his day. Origen (230 AD)
taught that God the Father and God the Son were co-eternal, and that the
(Logos) Son was eternally generated. His teachings were also denounced
by the true Christians of his day. The Apostate ‘Christian Church’ at
the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople in 381 AD at the urging of the
Roman emperor formulated the first trinitarian creed, after almost 50
years of Arian (modern JW’s and Mormons) teaching, but the current
doctrine of the trinity which the vast majority of ‘christian’ churches
teach only came into being at the end of the 8th century and was written
by John of Damascus. This creed is known as the Athanasian Creed. (community.beliefnet.com/go/thread/view/44071/13342859/Is_the_TRINITY_a_man_made_doctrine_If_so,_who_made_it_up)

BTW, how can our Lord Jesus Christ be OUR mediator if he is one with our Father? Why are there two thrones in heaven – shouldn’t there be either three or only one? How insignificant would it have been for God to become flesh and raise Himself from the dead, versus sacrificing for our sins His only son who had free will and could have said no and walked away from it all – did he not ask his Father if there were another way? And if he and his Father are one, it makes no sense that he would ask such a question as that!

We really should rightly divide the Word and drop the absurd pagan notion of a triune god.

 

[hasantas]

By any human logic the trinity doctrine is a paradox. I know it can’t be explained, especially by dubious analogies. My problem is not the paradox because I know that not everything can be explained logically. My issue is that the bible seems to contradict the trinity doctrine.

There are only two verses in the entire bible that I believe really support the trinity while there are dozens more in addition to the ones I listed that seem to contradict it. There are also plenty of arguments that the versus, such as John 1:1, that support the trinity could be mistranslated.

The ratio of verses for or against really doesn’t matter. As long as there are verses that contradict the trinity, it is hard to take the ones that support it seriously.

It is very good to hear that from a Christian.