God Manifest - Visible

[Delta2]

How can three people be one person ? That doesn’t make any sense. Many flat out consider Christians to be polytheists for this reason.

God is One God, who has three natures.

You can understand the Triunity - TRIUNITY I repeat - of God as many examples in Nature…because…as you know…God made it all…He is the creator of universe

My favorite is the water analogy :

There is 3 states of water : solid (ice) , liquid, and gaseous (vapor)…

3-in-one.

but all of them still water

water natural state is liquid : The father

is the natural state of God

but it manifests in the son and the Holly Spirit…because they are one : the water/God

water solid state ( ice ) : Jesus ( the son )

visible, touchable

water vapor/gaseous : Holy spirit

it’s all there, just look to the sky and all around you…there is always vapor

**
They all can’t be the same at the same time - liquid can’t be ice as much as vapor can’t be liquid.**

---

Our universe itself is a three in one trinity.

1. Space. Infinite. Relates to the Father.
2. Mass. Visible. Relates to the Son.
3. Time. Animates the universe. Relates to the Holy Spirit.

the Space can be the Mass - the Mass can be the Space - the Time can be either space and Mass.

---

Time is a three in one entity.

1. Future. Relates to the Father, the planner and the plan.
2. Present. The only visible manifestation of time. Relates to the Son.
3. Past. We should learn a lot from it. What would we know without it? Relates to our teacher, the Holy Spirit.

Also Future can’t be the present, the present can’t be the future. And The past can’t be the Future or Present.

---

The electricity power :

1. Potential. (volts) Can’t be seen or felt until there is a path for current flow, but the power is available. Relates to the Father.
2. Path or load. (ohms) The power becomes manifest, or visible, whether it is the movement of a needle or digits on a meter, or the electric appliances in our home. Relates to the Son.
3. Current. (amps) Electricity in action. Relates to the Holy Spirit.

---

The light :

Light is light, right? Yes, but it has three characteristics that relate directly to the Trinity.

1. Actinic. The quality of light that is neither seen nor felt but makes the plants grow. Relates to the Father.
2. Luminiferious. The quality that can be seen and felt. Relates to the Son.
3. Calorific. The quality that cannot be seen, but can be felt. Relates to the Holy Spirit.

---

Now we can start to see what God’s Word means when it says we are created in the “image of God”. Man is a triune being also:

1. Soul. Neither seen nor felt, but contains our databank that makes us who we are. Relates to the Father.
2. Body. Our manifestation. You can see it and feel it. Relates to the Son.
3. Spirit. You can neither see nor feel our spirit, just like God’s Spirit.

---

Man, great, you may say, I can see also trinity in a Egg, right ?

yeah, Egg means life for a lot of beings, where there is life…there is a image of God…as the Water analogy

shell - yolk - white
3-in-one

again - the shell can’t be the yolk - the white can’t be the shell. It doesn’t work them alone

A good site also here :

mb-soft.com/public/trinity2.html

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

… God is One God, who has three natures…

I think your terminology is a bit wrong. I’d recommend to you Frank Sheed’s book, Theology for Beginners.

Sheed breaks it up into “person” and “nature”. The person defines who you are. The nature defines what you are.

Who is the first person of the trinity? He is the Father.
Who is the second person of the trinity? He is the Son.
Who is the third person of the trinity? He is the Holy Spirit.

What is the Father? He is God.
What is the Son? He is God (who took on human nature).
What is the Holy Spirit? He is God.

God is only one nature; Divine - it is infinite and unlimited. There can not be two or more divine natures because one would be limited by not being the other. So, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit all the possess the exact same divine nature in its totallity - not a part of it, and not a copy of it. Regarding the Trinity, Sheed says, they love with the same will and they know with the same intellect.

But your analogies are interesting.

 

[PaulDupre]

How can three people be one person ? That doesn’t make any sense. Many flat out consider Christians to be polytheists for this reason.

God is One God, who has three natures.

Hi Delta2,
While I appreciate your effort here, I want to gently correct your terminology.

God is not three people who are one person; God is one being whose nature it is to exist as a family of three persons.

God does not have three natures; there is only one divine God nature and each person of the trinity shares this one nature (as every human person shares the same human nature).

Jesus is the only person who has ever shared both natures - human and divine.

Otherwise, no problem. But we need to be careful about terminology, because wrong terminology leads to misconceptions and wrong belief.

God love you,
Paul

 

[Delta2]

Thanks, didn’t said it right, I was focusing in 3 different persons. Inseparable in what they are, the divine persons are also inseparable in what they do. But within the single divine operation each shows forth what is proper to him in the Trinity, especially in the divine missions of the Son’s Incarnation and the gift of the Holy Spirit.

My view and faith is that of my church ( Roman Catholic Church )

We worship one God in the Trinity and the Trinity in unity, without either confusing the persons or dividing the substance; for the person of the Father is one, the Son’s is another, the Holy Spirit’s another; but the Godhead of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is one, their glory equal, their majesty coeternal

Athanasian Creed: DS 75; ND 16

Thanks again to pointed out my silly mistake

 

[Evlogitos]

Some of your cited examples are inaccurate as teaching tools. For example, the ice/water/vapor analogy actually describes the heresy known as modalism, which states that God is a single person who takes on three different appearances depending on the circumstances (as opposed to one essence of God possessed in fullness by three divine Persons).

I find that Tertullian’s example of the tree to be particularly instructive. A tree begins at its roots, grows up out of its trunk, and branches out to have limbs. Thus, we identify the roots as “tree,” we identify the trunk as “tree,” and we identify the branches as “tree,” yet each aspect of the tree, while sharing in a common tree-ness, has its own particular identity and unique characteristics. We also acknowledge that the roots are the ultimate source of the trunk and branches, yet the branches, while deriving from the roots, find their ultimate extension via the intermediary of the trunk.

In the same way, we say the Father, Son, and Spirit are all God, and equally so; yet each Person has His particular identity and personhood, without disrupting the unity of God. Just as we do not call roots, trunk and branches three trees, but one, so we confess the Father, Son, and Spirit to be one God. The Father is the ultimate source of the Godhead, like the roots are the foundation of the tree. The Son and Spirit derive their ultimate stature from the Father, yet in equality, and without subordination, just as we do not call the trunk or branches less honourable merely because they have the roots as their source. Finally, while the Spirit proceeds from the Father and has the Father as the sole source of His being, the Spirit is extended to us in the world through the commission of the Son, just as the branches reach out and give fruit and shade to men through the trunk, despite deriving their ultimate existence from the roots.

So there you go. The Trinity in one easy lesson. Obviously, analogy only goes so far, and the Trinity is eternally a mystery beyond human comprehension. Yet we can begin to understand the character of God, though teaching tools like the above.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

For my classes I use the following:

I have a thought. To express it I use words. To convey the words to you I speak them. Thus we have: Thought, Word and Breath. All are the one idea; yet each is separate.

Just my speculation;yet somewhat akin to the idea expressed by Dorothy Sayers in **The Mind of the Maker **. She compares the Trinity to: the story the author has in mind, the story that is written, and the story that is perceived by the reader; all the same, but different.

 

[Evlogitos]

I have a thought. To express it I use words. To convey the words to you I speak them. Thus we have: Thought, Word and Breath. All are the one idea; yet each is separate.

I dunno, this seems a bit muddled. Certainly there is a logical progression from one to the other, but they are distinctive concepts that are not necessarily unified in essence. I think there are simpler ways to convey the idea of the Trinity.

Just my speculation;yet somewhat akin to the idea expressed by Dorothy Sayers in The Mind of the Maker . She compares the Trinity to: the story the author has in mind, the story that is written, and the story that is perceived by the reader; all the same, but different.

This conception would logically lend itself to modalism, since it bespeaks the same thing from three different perspectives (classically modalistic), rather than three unique things united by essence into a single entity.

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

… I have a thought. To express it I use words. To convey the words to you I speak them. Thus we have: Thought, Word and Breath. All are the one idea; yet each is separate…

That doesn’t quite define God. God is a spirit who knows and loves.

You and the thought are separate indeed. But to speak your thought doesn’t relate to God, for God does not speak as we know it - He has no mouth - He is a pure spirit with no body.

But God’s thought is known as The Word. So God utters a word - not framed by the mouth, of course, for God has no mouth. He is pure spirit. So it is a word in the mind of God… What idea produced in God’s mind could possibly be God? Christian thinking saw early that it could only be the idea God has of himself. And as we know, The Word became man and the rest is history.

There is an infinite love between The Father and The Son. And because this love is infinite, it must be God. We know this love as The Holy Spirit.

In his book, Theology for Beginners, Frank Sheed says - “In the Son, the Father utters his self-knowledge; in the Holy Spirit, the Father and Son utter thier mutual love.”

 

[Evlogitos]

In his book, Theology for Beginners, Frank Sheed says - “In the Son, the Father utters his self-knowledge; in the Holy Spirit, the Father and Son utter thier mutual love.”

This would seem to reduce the Holy Spirit to an abstract and subordinate principle, as well as deny the uniqueness of the Father as the origin of the Godhead. Properly, the Spirit does not–cannot–consist of warm fuzzies between the Father and Son. The Spirit, properly speaking, is eternally spirated (breathed forth) from the Father, and is sent into the world by the Son.

I believe the RCC has even directly stated that the filioque should not be construed to mean the Spirit proceeds equally from both Father and Son (since the Father is the origin of the Godhead). This being the case, the Spirit cannot be the abstract force of mutual love between Father and Son, because it would logically mean the Son loves the Father less than the Father loves the Son.

Not to mention the Spirit, as a Person in Himself, must also be beloved of the Father and Son (because God is Love), which under this theory would simply result in the spawning of infinite Divine Persons.

It’s statements like that which make even us very ecumenically-minded Orthodox feel a bit queasy about reunion… :nope:

 

[AgnosTheist]

How can three people be one person ?

---

Multiple Pesonality syndrome (or Split Personality)

The mind of 2 or more persons occupy the brain of one human being.

 

[Evlogitos]

Ha ha. Very funny, you modalist, you.

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

This would seem to reduce the Holy Spirit to an abstract and subordinate principle, as well as deny the uniqueness of the Father as the origin of the Godhead…

As the one great operation of spirit, knowing, produces the second person, so the other, loving, produces the third. The second person proceeds from the first alone; but the third, the Holy Spirit, proceeds from Father and Son, as they combine to express their love. Thus in the Nicene Creed we say of him who proceeds from the Father and the Son…

Before the world was created, who did the Father love? Who did the Son love? They could only love each other. What good is the Father’s love if there is nobody to receive it and wouldn’t perfect love require that it be given back?

Sure, the Father has the dignity of being the origin, but the Son and Holy Spirit possess the same nature as the Father. That means they love with the same will as the Father, and they know with the same intellect as the Father. It just means that the Father as a person has that dignity of being the origin - but dignity is not part of your nature; Dignity can define who you are, but not what you are. So, we don’t believe it reduces them to subordinate principles at all. They are all divine because of their nature. They are divine because of what they are, not who they are.

 

[Evlogitos]

As the one great operation of spirit, knowing, produces the second person, so the other, loving, produces the third. But be careful upon this - the second proceeds from, is produced by, the first alone; but the third, the Holy Spirit, proceeds from Father and Son, as they combine to express their love. Thus in the Nicene Creed we say of him who proceeds from the Father and the Son…

Not to repeat myself, but again:

1. This reduces the Spirit to a subordinate abstraction.
2. Even in fairly hardline Catholic theology, this expression is impossible, since the Spirit does not proceed coequally from the Father and the Son (the Father being the origin of deity in the Godhead). Thus, your theory would mean the Father loves the Son more than the Son loves the Father.
3. Since the Spirit is a Person as well, and God is Love, The Father and the Son must love the Spirit too. This would end up creating a second Spirit, whom the rest would also love, which would create a third, and so forth ad infinitum.

Before the world was created, who did the Father love? Who did the Son love? They could only love each other. What good is the Father’s love if there is nobody to receive it and wouldn’t perfect love require that it be given back?

God is Love. This is the essence of the relationship between all the persons of the Trinity.

Sure, the Father has the dignity of being the origin, but the Son and Holy Spirit possess the same nature as the Father. That means they love with the same will as the Father, and they know with the same intellect as the Father.

Just to clarify your terminology, which on its face is a bit monarchial. I’ll quote from a priest:

The one will is enhypostasised in the three hypostases of the Trinity. This enhypostasis is such that the will is owned distinctly and completely by each Person of the Trinity; there is no substance “in-between” them for something to exist between them. Within each person the one will is contextualised to that Person, so the Father wills as Father and the Son as Son and the Spirit as Spirit. Hence, there are three wills (modes of willing) in the Trinity, one of each Person, which are one will (object/faculty) from the Father… to claim three objects (faculties) of will would be heresy and to deny three modes of will would also lead to heresy because it would confuse the distinct Persons of the Trinity.

We don’t believe it reduces them to subordinate principles at all.

The Son is begotten, equal of the Father; the Spirit is breathed forth, equal of the Father. The Spirit is not merely the energy of the relationship between the Father and the Son. Even your Council of Florence agrees:

The Latins asserted that they say the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son not with the intention of excluding the Father from being the source and principle of all deity, that is of the Son and of the holy Spirit, nor to imply that the Son does not receive from the Father, because the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, nor that they posit two principles or two spirations; but they assert that there is only one principle and a single spiration of the holy Spirit.

The rendering in English is confusing, but, according to the Catholic theology:

(1) The Son is begotten of the Father;
(2) The Spirit is breathed forth from the Father;
(3) The Father bequeaths the divine consubstantiality to the Son;
(4) Therefore, the Spirit receives the divine consubstantiality through both Father and Son;
(5) Therefore, it is not inaccurate to say the Spirit “proceeds from the Father and the Son.”

It’s messy and obtuse, but it works. “through the Son” rather than “from the Son,” however, would have saved Christendom a lot of grief. The Pontificial Council for Promoting Christian Unity says, much more precisely and accurately:

*The Father alone is the principle without principle of the two other persons of the Trinity, the sole source of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit therefore takes his origin from the Father alone in a principal, proper and immediate manner… The doctrine of the Filioque must be understood and presented by the Catholic Church in such a way that it cannot appear to contradict the Monarchy of the Father nor the fact that he is the sole origin of the Spirit… its purpose was to stress the fact that the Holy Spirit is of the same divine nature as the Son, without calling in question the one monarchy of the Father. …

The Father only generates the Son by breathing through him the Holy Spirit and the Son is only begotten by the Father insofar as the spiration passes through him. The Father is Father of the One Son only by being for him and through him the origin of the Holy Spirit.*

Thus, we would probably most precisely say that the Spirit originates/spirates from the Father, proceeding through the Son; and that the Spirit in its procession enlivens or energizes the Son.

Triadology is a difficult subject, though, that much I grant.

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

… 3. Since the Spirit is a Person as well, and God is Love, The Father and the Son must love the Spirit too. This would end up creating a second Spirit, whom the rest would also love, which would create a third, and so forth ad infinitum…

No it wouldn’t because the love is infinite. You can’t have two infinite loves because one would be limited by not being the other. The infinite love between the Father and Son is the same infinite love between the Father and Holy Spirit etc…

… It’s messy and obtuse, but it works. “through the Son” rather than “from the Son,” however, would have saved Christendom a lot of grief…

I’m not sure if we are on the same page.

The two great operations of a spirit - to know and to love - is the basis of the Trinity for God. God’s knowledge is Jesus. And God’s love is the Holy Spirit. Do you agree with this? If not, then we’ll have to end our discussion here.

 

[Evlogitos]

No it wouldn’t because the love is infinite. You can’t have two infinite loves because one would be limited by not being the other. The infinite love between the Father and Son is the same infinite love between the Father and Holy Spirit etc…

This is an inaccurate logical construction. You can have more than one infinite love in the same way that you can have more than one infinite Divine Person. Or do you deny that God loves mankind infinitely as well? If the Love of the Father has the Son as its object, and vice versa, this creating the Holy Spirit, there is no ontological reason why the Love of the Father for the Person of the Holy Spirit, and vice versa, would not begin to create a cascading chain of new personal manifestations.

I’m not sure if we are on the same page.

The two great operations of a spirit - to know and to love - is the basis of the Trinity for God. God’s knowledge is Jesus. And God’s love is the Holy Spirit. Do you agree with this? If not, then we’ll have to end our discussion here.

I believe stating that the Holy Spirit is the Love of God is extremely (and overly) simplistic. I would agree partially and in principle, but the notion is so simplistic as to be well-nigh inaccurate.

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

This is an inaccurate logical construction. You can have more than one infinite love in the same way that you can have more than one infinite Divine Person. …

I think infinite means unlimited. So, there can’t be two infinite loves because one would be limited by not being the other.

This is why we’re not on the same page. I think there is a confusion regarding “person” and “nature”. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are distinct persons - not infinite, but their nature is infinite.

This is why Frank Sheed’s book - Theology for Beginners - is a great read. He explains the Trinity in the context of persons and nature.

Frank Sheed writes…
[pg 27]We are saying: “Three persons in one nature.” The trouble is that, if we attach no meaning to the words person and nature, they tend to drop out; so we are left with the two numbers, as though they represented the supreme truth about God. We must see what “person” means and what “nature” means; then see we can make of the three and the one.

[pg 28] The first stages of our investigation into person and nature are simple enough. We use the phrase “my nature,” which means that there is a person, “I,” who possesses a nature. The person could not exist without the nature, but some distinction there seems to be - the person possesses the nature, not vice versa. We say, “my nature,” not “nature’s me.” [The nature is what we are. The person is who we are.]

My favourite line in Sheed’s book regarding the Trinity is “they know with the same intellect, love with the same will.” [pg 30]

 

[Evlogitos]

I think infinite means unlimited. So, there can’t be two infinite loves because one would be limited by not being the other.

Again, the Father possesses the plenitude of immanence, the Son possesses the plenitude of immanence, and the Holy Spirit possesses the plenitude of immanence.

This is why we’re not on the same page. I think there is a confusion regarding “person” and “nature”. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are distinct persons - not infinite, but their nature is infinite.

I think this is a hairsplitting and effectively meaningless distinction that is also inaccurate. If the Holy Spirit is not infinite, what are His bounds?

This is why Frank Sheed’s book - Theology for Beginners - is a great read. He explains the Trinity in the context of persons and nature.

Frank Sheed writes…

[pg 27]We are saying: "Three persons in one nature." The trouble is that, if we attach no meaning to the words person and nature, they tend to drop out; so we are left with the two numbers, as though they represented the supreme truth about God. We must see what "person" means and what "nature" means; then see we can make of the three and the one.

[pg 28] The first stages of our investigation into person and nature are simple enough. We use the phrase "my nature," which means that there is a person, "I," who possesses a nature. The person could not exist without the nature, but some distinction there seems to be - the person possesses the nature, not vice versa. We say, "my nature," not "nature's me." [The nature is what we are. The person is who we are.]

For beginners, indeed. Does Mr. Sheed know koine or medieval Greek? The Greek terms used by the Fathers, properly understood, make the distinction quite easily and readily; they just take a bit of time and etymology and context to explain.

My favourite line in Sheed’s book regarding the Trinity is “they know with the same intellect, love with the same will.” [pg 30]

Again, however, the will of God is one will enhypostasized in each Divine Person, such that the will is owned in completeness and plenitude by each.

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

Plenitude. Immanence. Koine. Etymology. Enhypostasized.

When I get to a dictionary, you’re going to be in trouble!

Only kidding. But thanks for the discussion.

 

[Evlogitos]

You bet. I’m sorry about the grandiose theological vocabulary… I’m in law school, and I’ve always been really picky about getting the word with just the right meaning. This often leads to my using really strange words.