My problem with the idea of the trinity

[Wesrock]

The Son did not begin to exist in Jesus. The Son existed before Jesus, eternally. He is not the Father. He is God. The Father is God.

 

[porthos11]

In the context of my statement “being = person.”

Unfortunately in discussions pertaining to the Trinity, Incarnation, etc. we cannot redefine terms; this causes all sorts of trouble. This need was identified early on during the first Ecumenical Council and its best for us to stick to their definitions, even using the Greek terms if necessary. “Being” for example, as a very specific meaning, and is always tied to the term “ousia” or “substance”. “Person” is a whole other concept, for which the Fathers used the term “hypostasis.” It’s precise and technical and confusing being and person, or conflating their meanings can lead to serious errors.

 

[Wesrock]

I think this came up in another thread and was explained differently moreso that God the Father experienced pain and suffering through Christ Jesus. Yes I know that God the Father is Spirit, but when He was with Jesus He walked with Jesus through it because Jesus and the Father are ONE. R_C in the second post explains it well and how I see it.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=808280

One in will. One in sharing the divine nature. One in being God. But the Father was not incarnate in Jesus. The Son of the Father, the Father’s image, was incarnated in Jesus. But not the Father Himself.

God literally walked among us. The Son literally walked among us. The Father did not literally walk among us.

 

[Karen107]

I think the questions you are asking go “deeper.” It seems like you feel we are saying that God didn’t suffer, or can’t understand it somehow if God the Father wasn’t crucified. God did indeed suffer. Jesus is God. We are also agreeing that God is love. What most here are cautioning against is making the Father and Son somehow just modes, or making their unique roles and Persons superfluous.

Actually what I believe I’m doing is bringing out the truth that the Father and the Son are ONE which helps us understand the nature of God and God the nature of what it is to be human through Jesus Christ Our Lord.

 

[Karen107]

One in will. One in sharing the divine nature. One in being God. But the Father was not incarnate in Jesus. The Son of the Father, the Father’s image, was incarnated in Jesus. But not the Father Himself.

God literally walked among us. The Son literally walked among us. The Father did not literally walk among us.

See I disagree because of the Trinity of the Father with the Son and the Son with the Father. The entirety of God is in the Son.

Jesus said:

John 10:30 I and the Father are ONE

 

[Wesrock]

Actually what I believe I’m doing is bringing out the truth that the Father and the Son are ONE which helps us understand the nature of God and God the nature of what it is to be human through Jesus Christ Our Lord.

But the way you have articulated this is in direct contradiction to dogma, has been condemned as heretical teachings. This isn’t just our opinions based on the Catechism and scripture, anymore than condemning Arian statements as heresy would would be only our opinions on the matter. As was done in regards to Arianism, Modalism and the idea that the Father suffered on the cross, or that the Father was incarnated in Jesus, have been formally condemned by the Church.

The Father and Son ARE one, as you say, but other conclusions you’ve articulated from this are at odds with Church teaching.

 

[Kliska]

Actually what I believe I’m doing is bringing out the truth that the Father and the Son are ONE which helps us understand the nature of God and God the nature of what it is to be human through Jesus Christ Our Lord.

But, do you see the heresy that can happen if we aren’t really really careful with the description of God? We have all stated that God is One. The OP was struggling with the Trinity. That makes us talk about The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and how they really are Persons; Three Persons, One God.

 

[TheTrinitySaves]

But the way you have articulated this is in direct contradiction to dogma, has been condemned as heretical teachings. This isn’t just our opinions based on the Catechism and scripture, anymore than condemning Arian statements as heresy would would be only our opinions on the matter. As was done in regards to Arianism, Modalism and the idea that the Father suffered on the cross, or that the Father was incarnated in Jesus, have been formally condemned by the Church.

So Jesus is God. AND equal to the Father. But they are 2 separate beings. While being the same person?

 

[Bookcat]

I

Karen et al

We want to avoid the error I noted up above.

Yes God did become flesh and suffer and die - God did become man (God the Son) and suffered on the cross for us and died. The Father though did not become flesh and suffer on the cross …nor the Holy Spirit. But yes it is true “God did suffer and die” - God the Son (who is yes consubstantial with the Father and the Son).

" The Christian faith has shown us that truth, justice and love are not simply ideals, but enormously weighty realities. It has shown us that God —Truth and Love in person—desired to suffer for us and with us. Bernard of Clairvaux coined the marvellous expression: Impassibilis est Deus, sed non incompassibilis[29]—God cannot suffer, but he can suffer with. Man is worth so much to God that he himself became man in order to suffer with man in an utterly real way—in flesh and blood—as is revealed to us in the account of Jesus’s Passion."

~ Pope Benedict XVI Spe Salvi

w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20071130_spe-salvi.html

 

[Bookcat]

But they are 2 separate beings. While being the same person?

No.

One God

Three Persons.

 

[Wesrock]

So Jesus is God.

Yes.

AND equal to the Father.

In nature, yes. In relationship, the Son is obedient to the Father. The Father is unbegotten and has no origin. The Son is begotten by the Father (eternally, not at any moment in time).

But they are 2 separate beings.

God is one being in three persons. I don’t want to call the Father and Son separate *beings *for that reason. Though they are separate persons. Jesus was also one person, who had a man’s body, soul, mind, and will, but who was also hypostatically united to the divine nature and will of the Son. But we’ve got two topics here. (1) The union three persons in one God, and (2) The union of the divine nature and human nature in the one person of Jesus Christ.

While being the same person?

The Father and Son are not the same person. They are two of the three persons that make the one being (insofar as we can analogously refer to God as “a” being, but that’s a separate issue…) that is God.

 

[porthos11]

I think this came up in another thread and was explained differently moreso that God the Father experienced pain and suffering through Christ Jesus. Yes I know that God the Father is Spirit, but when He was with Jesus He walked with Jesus through it because Jesus and the Father are ONE. R_C in the second post explains it well and how I see it.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=808280

Eeeh…yeah, but only as an accommodation, i.e. it’s used only in a less precise manner to help express it in human terms. It cannot be taken as a wholly accurate expression. God cannot suffer (again refer back to the dogma: God is impassable).

Strictly speaking, Jesus suffered and died as a man because as God, he cannot suffer or die. This now goes to another core mystery of the faith, the Hypostatic Union (one Person, two Natures). The PERSON who suffered and died was divine, God, the Second Person of the Trinity (not the First and not the Third). But in what NATURE Jesus suffered and died was his ***human ***nature because suffering and death is part of the human condition, not the divine. This is how Catechisms have put it:

Catechism of Pope Pius X (Fourth Article of the Creed, Q3)
Q: Did Jesus Christ suffer as God or as man?
A: Jesus Christ suffered as man alone; as God He could neither suffer nor die.

As such, the Father (and the Son, as God) did not “feel” the suffering and death, but Jesus as man did. It does not conflate the persons, and neither does it split Jesus into two persons, but it does show that while anything the Person does can be attributed to one nature (“Jesus died as a man”; “Jesus, as God knew everything”; “Jesus, as man had to learn things”), it was the Person who performed these tasks. Because Jesus is a divine Person, it can be said: God suffered and died. But this is God the Second Person of the Trinity, and he did so in his human nature. The Father never took on a human nature so he himself did not suffer or die.

So here we have another concept to wrap our heads around: the communication of idioms.

Unfortunately, some posters try to be accommodating by simplifying stuff, but more often than not, it leads to wrong understandings of God and sometimes serious errors.

 

[WingsOfEagles]

Genesis 1:26:

Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after **our **likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.”

 

[James248]

Unfortunately in discussions pertaining to the Trinity, Incarnation, etc. we cannot redefine terms; this causes all sorts of trouble. This need was identified early on during the first Ecumenical Council and its best for us to stick to their definitions, even using the Greek terms if necessary. “Being” for example, as a very specific meaning, and is always tied to the term “ousia” or “substance”. “Person” is a whole other concept, for which the Fathers used the term “hypostasis.” It’s precise and technical and confusing being and person, or conflating their meanings can lead to serious errors.

I see.

 

[James248]

Unfortunately in discussions pertaining to the Trinity, Incarnation, etc. we cannot redefine terms; this causes all sorts of trouble. This need was identified early on during the first Ecumenical Council and its best for us to stick to their definitions, even using the Greek terms if necessary. “Being” for example, as a very specific meaning, and is always tied to the term “ousia” or “substance”. “Person” is a whole other concept, for which the Fathers used the term “hypostasis.” It’s precise and technical and confusing being and person, or conflating their meanings can lead to serious errors.

I see. Thanks for the correction.

 

[Bookcat]

I

Karen et al

We want to avoid the error I noted up above.

Yes God did become flesh and suffer and die - God did become man (God the Son) and suffered on the cross for us and died. The Father though did not become flesh and suffer on the cross …nor the Holy Spirit. But yes it is true “God did suffer and die” - God the Son (who is yes consubstantial with the Father and the Son).

" The Christian faith has shown us that truth, justice and love are not simply ideals, but enormously weighty realities. It has shown us that God —Truth and Love in person—desired to suffer for us and with us. Bernard of Clairvaux coined the marvellous expression: Impassibilis est Deus, sed non incompassibilis[29]—God cannot suffer, but he can suffer with. Man is worth so much to God that he himself became man in order to suffer with man in an utterly real way—in flesh and blood—as is revealed to us in the account of Jesus’s Passion."

~ Pope Benedict XVI Spe Salvi

w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20071130_spe-salvi.html

 

[Karen107]

Karen et al

We want to avoid the error I noted up above.

Yes God did become flesh and suffer and die - God did become man (God the Son) and suffered on the cross for us and died. The Father though did not become flesh and suffer on the cross …nor the Holy Spirit. But yes it is true “God did suffer and die” - God the Son (who is yes consubstantial with the Father and the Son).

" The Christian faith has shown us that truth, justice and love are not simply ideals, but enormously weighty realities. It has shown us that God —Truth and Love in person—desired to suffer for us and with us. Bernard of Clairvaux coined the marvellous expression: Impassibilis est Deus, sed non incompassibilis[29]—God cannot suffer, but he can suffer with. Man is worth so much to God that he himself became man in order to suffer with man in an utterly real way—in flesh and blood—as is revealed to us in the account of Jesus’s Passion."

~ Pope Benedict XVI Spe Salvi

w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20071130_spe-salvi.html

I definitely concur with Pope Benedict XVI

 

[Vonsalza]

If we’re trying to figure-out how the members of the Godhead experience one another, I think we would be more productive looking at “cat videos” on Youtube.

I can’t even fully articulate how I experience my kids…

Jesus the Son and God the Father are two “persons” of the same “being”. Same goes with the Holy Spirit. If anyone thinks they can really understand that… well, I’ll leave that alone so I avoid name-calling. Do you really fully understand yourself? The Psychology Department at your local university would be surprised by such a bold claim.

In fairness to the OP, we did need an Ecumenical Council to hammer it out as there were alternative views floating around that were, apparently, not allowable according to proper orthodoxy.

 

[WingsOfEagles]

Genesis 1:26:

Then God said, “Let us make man in** our** image, after** our** likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.”

Sounds like from the beginning, God had multiple entities…

“Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: “I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god.” Isaiah 44:6

They have to be a Trinity or we are not monotheistic.

“Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord. And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all” (1 Corinthians 12:4-6)

Different entities, yet one.

 

[porthos11]

If we’re trying to figure-out how the members of the Godhead experience one another, I think we would be more productive looking at “cat videos” on Youtube.

I can’t even fully articulate how I experience my kids…

Jesus the Son and God the Father are two “persons” of the same “being”. Same goes with the Holy Spirit. If anyone thinks they can really understand that… well, I’ll leave that alone so I avoid name-calling. Do you really fully understand yourself? The Psychology Department at your local university would be surprised by such a bold claim.

In fairness to the OP, we did need an Ecumenical Council to hammer it out as there were alternative views floating around that were, apparently, not allowable according to proper orthodoxy.

That’s right. If one claims he has a full understanding of the Trinity or how it works, he is one of three things:

Lying
Deluded/A heretic
God Almighty Himself

As I mentioned earlier, we can come to a good understanding by first expressing what it is not. We get the errors out of the way, then blow incense over what remains and call it a mystery.