Easier way to explain the Trinity

[Fidei]

I see many non-trinitarians have trouble understanding the “person” concept of the trinity.
“Person” would typically mean either one man wearing three masks, or three men wearing one mask. The argument would either fall to modalism or tritheism.

Is it appropriate to relate the Trinity with the human body?

the explanation goes;

Though we are one human being, we are composed of organs and tissues that are distinct and function differently, God is like us, the three persons of the trinity are like His organs, the father as the head, Jesus as the hand and muscles, and the holy spirit as the heart and veins. The father is the nerve center of all activity, Jesus is the doer, the one who does the father’s will, while the holy spirit is the life-giver; the force that unites them and us to God

any comments?

 

[Barbkw]

generalwax.com/scented-candles/pillar-candles/cate_3/p___9066.html

 

[tafan]

I see many non-trinitarians have trouble understanding the “person” concept of the trinity.
“Person” would typically mean either one man wearing three masks, or three men wearing one mask. The argument would either fall to modalism or tritheism.

Is it appropriate to relate the Trinity with the human body?

the explanation goes;

Though we are one human being, we are composed of organs and tissues that are distinct and function differently, God is like us, the three persons of the trinity are like His organs, the father as the head, Jesus as the hand and muscles, and the holy spirit as the heart and veins. The father is the nerve center of all activity, Jesus is the doer, the one who does the father’s will, while the holy spirit is the life-giver; the force that unites them and us to God

any comments?

No it is not appropriate. First of all, it is wrong to associate any given function of God with just one of the person’s. You cannot say, as is popular in some protestant churches, that The Father is the creator, the Son is the redeemer, and the Holy Spirit is the sanctifier. They all participate in all actions, we don’t necessarily understand how. I think the idea that one is the will, the other the doer, and the other the life-giver is wrong along these same lines.

Also, I do not see the analogy between the idea of a “person”, wuth the different organs of the body. I think, in general, any analogy of the trinity with something physical is going to come up lacking, in a big way. The old shamrock clover analogy seems really weak to me, but maybe it helps for little kids.

I really don’t understand why we look for these analogies.

The word person, originally in the Greek did have to do with the masks, or parts, that actors wore. But the church really redifined it, and it is much closer to our common everyday understanding of person. I believe it is a) it has its own substance b) it has its own rational nature, and c) it is an individual, ie not simple a branch on a tree, or a leave of a clover.

There is another definition accepted that has four or five attributes, I would need to look that one up.

 

[david_friol_1]

I would say that any time we try to explain the Trinity we only fall short because our experience comes from the natural order of the world, where as, God is infinitely beyond it and of the super-natural order. So the reason why your example falls short is not because it is stupid or anything like that. The human body takes up space and those parts of the body are not one in being with each other as we say about the Trinity in the Creeds. I think that if you would like to use the human being instead of the human body you may get a step closer (if that is possible when dealing with infinite being). After all we are made in God’s image and likeness. So there is, at least as I understand, something of a relation there between God and his special creature, which reminds me to tell you that it is probably incorrect of you to say that “God is like us”. We are created in his likeness. We sometimes have to remind ourselves that we are creatures formed by God.
So back to the human being concept:
-we are one being as God is one being
-we have knowledge and love as God has knowledge and love
-we can know some things and we can know ourselves as God can Know all-things and himself
-our knowledge of ourselves is very limited and imperfect but God’s knowledge of himself is limitless and perfect because he is limitless and perfect
-the knowledge that God has of himself is what we call the Son
-now the Son, the knowledge of God of himself, the idea that God has of himself, took flesh and became man at the Incarnation, Jesus Christ
-notice the “distinction” between God and the Knowledge that he has of himself, they are the same in nature because, as we have said, God is perfect in his knowledge and all-knowing so there is nothing different except the internal operations (One is the knower whom we call the Father and the other is known whom we call the Son)
-Now with love it is much the same
-we can love others and ourselves in a limited and imperfect way as God loves all creation, limited only by the time of creations existence, though he loves it perfectly and God loves the knowledge that he has of himself in a limitless and perfect way because he is limitless and perfect
-so the one who knows(the Father), knows(the Son) and also loves(the Holy Spirit) whom he knows(The Son) and the one who is known(the Son) returns that same love(the Holy Spirit) back to the one who knows(the Father) because there is nothing in the one who knows(the Father) that is not in the one who is known(the Son) because he knows and is known perfectly and limitlessly

 

[AmbroseSJ]

The simplest explanation I have ever seen is the Athanasian Creed. (google it)

 

[quixotic]

C.S. Lewis said somewhere that any body that is trying to comprehend the Trinity is like a square trying to comprehend a cube.

St. Augustine describe the Trinity this way —the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit— as the Lover, the Beloved, and the Love.