Nature of God

[WmJackP]

I understand the Catholic faith to teach that God is a person (or more accurately, three persons in one God). What puzzles me is what does that statement actually mean? I fully realize that the stock response to my question generally is that “it is a mystery”. But I am not asking “how” this can be. I will leave the “how” alone, and, accept that the process of “how” this can be to remain a mystery. My question instead is what does the statement even mean?

Why, I think “meaning” must be assigned to the statement is because, unless a statement makes sense, it is usually seen as nonsense. For example, when one discusses the existence of several personalities in one body, this statement has no “meaning” or correspondence to reality unless one is attempting to describe a pathological condition. But, I realize Christians certainly do not mean this when describing their triune God. So, what do they mean?

Unless the statement has a “meaning” beyond its composite of words, it seems to me that it has no more informational content than the statement that “a square is a triangle”.

 

[davidv]

I understand the Catholic faith to teach that God is a person (or more accurately, three persons in one God). What puzzles me is what does that statement actually mean? I fully realize that the stock response to my question generally is that “it is a mystery”. But I am not asking “how” this can be. I will leave the “how” alone, and, accept that the process of “how” this can be to remain a mystery. My question instead is what does the statement even mean?

Why, I think “meaning” must be assigned to the statement is because, unless a statement makes sense, it is usually seen as nonsense. For example, when one discusses the existence of several personalities in one body, this statement has no “meaning” or correspondence to reality unless one is attempting to describe a pathological condition. But, I realize Christians certainly do not mean this when describing their triune God. So, what do they mean?

Unless the statement has a “meaning” beyond its composite of words, it seems to me that it has no more informational content than the statement that “a square is a triangle”.

Does this begin to address your point?

253 The Trinity is One. We do not confess three Gods, but one God in three persons, the “consubstantial Trinity”.83 The divine persons do not share the one divinity among themselves but each of them is God whole and entire: "The Father is that which the Son is, the Son that which the Father is, the Father and the Son that which the Holy Spirit is, i.e. by nature one God."84 In the words of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), "Each of the persons is that supreme reality, viz., the divine substance, essence or nature."85

254 The divine persons are really distinct from one another. "God is one but not solitary."86 “Father”, “Son”, “Holy Spirit” are not simply names designating modalities of the divine being, for they are really distinct from one another: "He is not the Father who is the Son, nor is the Son he who is the Father, nor is the Holy Spirit he who is the Father or the Son."87 They are distinct from one another in their relations of origin: "It is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds."88 The divine Unity is Triune.
255 The divine persons are relative to one another. Because it does not divide the divine unity, the real distinction of the persons from one another resides solely in the relationships which relate them to one another: "In the relational names of the persons the Father is related to the Son, the Son to the Father, and the Holy Spirit to both. While they are called three persons in view of their relations, we believe in one nature or substance."89 Indeed "everything (in them) is one where there is no opposition of relationship."90 "Because of that unity the Father is wholly in the Son and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Son is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Son."91
256 St. Gregory of Nazianzus, also called “the Theologian”, entrusts this summary of Trinitarian faith to the catechumens of Constantinople:
Above all guard for me this great deposit of faith for which I live and fight, which I want to take with me as a companion, and which makes me bear all evils and despise all pleasures: I mean the profession of faith in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. I entrust it to you today. By it I am soon going to plunge you into water and raise you up from it. I give it to you as the companion and patron of your whole life. I give you but one divinity and power, existing one in three, and containing the three in a distinct way. Divinity without disparity of substance or nature, without superior degree that raises up or inferior degree that casts down. . . the infinite co-naturality of three infinites. Each person considered in himself is entirely God. . . the three considered together. . . I have not even begun to think of unity when the Trinity bathes me in its splendor. I have not even begun to think of the Trinity when unity grasps me. . .92

Where is the logical contradiction in this?

 

[bmonk]

You are right in noting that “it is a mystery” because the nature of God is beyond the capacity of the human intellect to fully grasp or speak about.

With that proviso, “three persons in one God” relies on analogy to human persons: a person is someone to whom we can relate, with an appearance and character we can recognize. It is the person in whom rights, privileges, responsibilities and liabilities are found. By extension, we develop the idea of a “juridical person,” an institution with similar abilities–such as a corporation, or an office (Bishop of Rome, say).

In this context, God as a person has a character (loving, creative, reaching out to us, willing to save us, respecting our free will, and so on)

Beyond that, the understanding of how One God can be Three Persons (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) is even more difficult, but we can say that it does allow God to be a God of Love even apart from Creation–God does not rely on creatures outside of the Trinity to have something to love.

 

[Ad_Orientem]

Perhaps this excerpt from the Catholic Encyclopedia article “Person” will help:

For the constitution of a person it is required that a reality be subsistent and absolutely distinct, i.e. incommunicable. The three Divine realities are relations, each identified with the Divine Essence. A finite relation has reality only in so far as it is an accident; it has the reality of inherence. The Divine relations, however, are in the nature not by inherence but by identity. The reality they have, therefore, is not that of an accident, but that of a subsistence. They are one with ipsum esse subsistens. Again every relation, by its very nature, implies opposition and so distinction. In the finite relation this distinction is between subject and term. In the infinite relations there is no subject as distinct from the relation itself; the Paternity is the Father–and no term as distinct from the opposing relation; the Filiation is the Son. The Divine realities are therefore distinct and mutually incommunicable through this relative opposition; they are subsistent as being identified with the subsistence of the Godhead, i.e. they are persons. More]

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I understand the Catholic faith to teach that God is a person (or more accurately, three persons in one God). What puzzles me is what does that statement actually mean? I fully realize that the stock response to my question generally is that “it is a mystery”. But I am not asking “how” this can be. I will leave the “how” alone, and, accept that the process of “how” this can be to remain a mystery. My question instead is what does the statement even mean?

Why, I think “meaning” must be assigned to the statement is because, unless a statement makes sense, it is usually seen as nonsense. For example, when one discusses the existence of several personalities in one body, this statement has no “meaning” or correspondence to reality unless one is attempting to describe a pathological condition. But, I realize Christians certainly do not mean this when describing their triune God. So, what do they mean?

Unless the statement has a “meaning” beyond its composite of words, it seems to me that it has no more informational content than the statement that “a square is a triangle”.

It is a matter of Divine Revelation just like the Assumption or the Immaculate Conception, or a virgin giving birth, or the creation of the universe out of nothing. Can you explain any of these things logically? But you accept them, right, on the Teaching Authority of the Magisterium. Is the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist reasonable? Is the Incarnation reasonable, is raising the dead to life reasonable, or driving out devils, reading minds, walking on water, calming storms?

At the Baptism of Christ, the Father spoke, " This is my beloved son. " At the same time the Holy Spirit rested on him in the form of a tongue of fire. All three Persons were present at one time. Have faith.

Linus2nd

 

[Qoeleth]

Yes, God is wholly beyond knowledge and attributes, existence and non-existence. There words from St. Dionysius are illuminating:

“Again, ascending yet higher, we maintain that it is neither soul nor intellect; nor has it imagination, opinion reason or understanding; nor can it be expressed or conceived, since it is neither number nor order; nor greatness nor smallness; nor equality nor inequality; nor similarity nor dissimilarity; neither is it standing, nor moving, nor at rest; neither has it power nor is power, nor is light; neither does it live nor is it life; neither is it essence, nor eternity nor time; nor is it subject to intelligible contact; nor is it science nor truth, nor kingship nor wisdom; neither one nor oneness, nor godhead nor goodness; nor is it spirit according to our understanding, nor filiation, nor paternity; nor anything else known to us or to any other beings of the things that are or the things that are not; neither does anything that is know it as it is; nor does it know existing things according to existing knowledge; neither can the reason attain to it, nor name it, nor know it; neither is it darkness nor light, nor the false nor the true; nor can any affirmation or negation be applied to it, for although we may affirm or deny the things below it, we can neither affirm nor deny it, inasmuch as the all-perfect and unique Cause of all things transcends all affirmation, and the simple pre-eminence of Its absolute nature is outside of every negation- free from every limitation and beyond them all.”

And, God is even beyond this…

 

[The_Serpent]

:shamrock2:

 

[RichWh1]

I understand the Catholic faith to teach that God is a person (or more accurately, three persons in one God). What puzzles me is what does that statement actually mean? I fully realize that the stock response to my question generally is that “it is a mystery”. But I am not asking “how” this can be. I will leave the “how” alone, and, accept that the process of “how” this can be to remain a mystery. My question instead is what does the statement even mean?

Why, I think “meaning” must be assigned to the statement is because, unless a statement makes sense, it is usually seen as nonsense. For example, when one discusses the existence of several personalities in one body, this statement has no “meaning” or correspondence to reality unless one is attempting to describe a pathological condition. But, I realize Christians certainly do not mean this when describing their triune God. So, what do they mean?

Unless the statement has a “meaning” beyond its composite of words, it seems to me that it has no more informational content than the statement that “a square is a triangle”.

I think the word ‘one’ is confusing you. God is one yes as Deut 6:4 say “Hear O Israel the LORD our God the LORD is One”

The word for one is echad, a hebrew root that indicates a unity of plurality or a union.

As in Genesis 2:23 we read " The man said,

“This is now bone of my bones,
And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called Woman,
Because she was taken out of Man.”

24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. "

The two (male and female) shall become one flesh (echad)

There are other places where God shows His plurality, such as in Gen. 3:22 "Behold man has become as one of** us **

Isa. 6:8 "Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, “Whom shall** I** send, and who will go for Us?”

This last passage would appear contradictory with the singular “I” and the plural “us” except as viewed as a plurality (us) in a unity

God Is At Least Two

In Psalm 45:7-8: the author writes

“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever;
A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.
You love righteousness and hate wickedness;
Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You
With the oil of gladness more than Your companions.”

Not only is Elohim applied to two personalities in the same verse, but so is the very name of God. One example is Genesis 19:24 which reads:

“Then the LORD rained brimstone and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah, from the LORD out of the heavens.”

God Is Three

First, there are the numerous times when there is a reference to the Lord YHVH
. A second personality is referred to as the Angel of YHVH In almost every passage where He is found He is referred to as both the Angel of YHVH and YHVH Himself. For instance, in Genesis 16:7 He is referred to as the Angel of YHVH, but then in 16:13 as YHVH Himself.

A third major personality that comes through is the Spirit of God,

The Holy Spirit cannot be a mere emanation because He contains all the characteristics of personality (intellect, emotion and will) and is considered divine.

The Three Personalities in the Same Passage

“Listen to Me, O Jacob, and Israel, My called: I am He, I am the First, I am also the Last. Indeed My hand also has laid the foundation of the earth, and My right hand has stretched out the heavens; when I call to them, they stand up together. All of you, assemble yourselves, and hear! Who among them has declared these things? The LORD has loved him; he shall do His pleasure on Babylon, and His arm shall be against the Chaldeans. I, even I, have spoken; yes, I have called him, I have brought him, and his way will prosper. Come near to Me, hear this: I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, I was there. And now the Lord GOD and His Spirit have sent me.”

It should be noted that the speaker refers to himself as the one who is responsible for the creation of the heavens and the earth. It is clear that he cannot be speaking of anyone other than God. But then in verse 16, the speaker refers to himself using the pronouns of I and me and then distinguishes himself from two other personalities. He distinguishes himself from the Lord YHVH and then from the Spirit of God. Here is the Tri-unity as clearly defined as the Hebrew Scriptures make it.

The teaching of the Hebrew Scriptures, then, is that there is a plurality of the Godhead. The first person is consistently called YHVH while the second person is given the names of YHVH, the Angel of YHVH and the Servant of YHVH. Consistently and without fail, the second person is sent by the first person. The third person is referred to as the Spirit of YHVH or the Spirit of God or the Holy Spirit

This is an excerpt from an article from Jews for Jesus showing that God is truly a tri unity, yet ONE. Jews for Jesus

 

[Della]

I understand the Catholic faith to teach that God is a person (or more accurately, three persons in one God). What puzzles me is what does that statement actually mean? I fully realize that the stock response to my question generally is that “it is a mystery”. But I am not asking “how” this can be. I will leave the “how” alone, and, accept that the process of “how” this can be to remain a mystery. My question instead is what does the statement even mean?

Why, I think “meaning” must be assigned to the statement is because, unless a statement makes sense, it is usually seen as nonsense. For example, when one discusses the existence of several personalities in one body, this statement has no “meaning” or correspondence to reality unless one is attempting to describe a pathological condition. But, I realize Christians certainly do not mean this when describing their triune God. So, what do they mean?

Unless the statement has a “meaning” beyond its composite of words, it seems to me that it has no more informational content than the statement that “a square is a triangle”.

Well then describe a square vs a triangle. What makes one what it is and the other what it is. Not so easy, is it?

To put it simply, because God is simple, God the Father is love. Being love he has to share his love. The Son is the emanation of his love–the one by whom he spoke into being the universe–an act of love. The Holy Spirit is his love in action, as in “the Spirit hovered over the waters” in creation.

We think of love as an attribute, a feeling, but in its essence it simply is. And that is the definition of God. He is who is. In himself he loves and is loved. And he continually shares his love.

We cannot wrap our heads around this, so it’s pointless to try. Our part is to be thankful that God is, that he shares his love infinitely, and that he has given his Son to us out of love. What more does anyone really need to understand?

 

[WmJackP]

Does this begin to address your point?
Where is the logical contradiction in this?

I am afraid your cited material appears to me to be simply a repetition of the same statement using different language.

The conflict with logic is self evident, isn’t it? 1 plus 1 plus 1 equals not one but three. However, the conflict in logic is more extreme than simply to comprehend how a unity of three personalities can compress into a single godhead. Even, even if we allow that the statement to be true on the basis that the statement is, after all, a mystery of faith, we are still left with the problem of what is the informational content of such a statement.

To give an example: What does it mean to say that a triangle is really a circle? One can say that “a triangle is really a circle” and how this can be so is a mystery–but, the statement means absolutely nothing. It has no informational content. There is nothing informative about such a description because it has no “meaning”.

I am suggesting that what is inherently so in conflict with logic that it conveys no informative data does not then become worthy of belief by alibiing it as a mystery. I suspect that you would agree that it is unreasonable to expect a statement like “a square is really a triangle” to be believed. Although the statement certainly can be uttered consistently with the rules of grammar (it has a verb, a noun and a syntax), yet it is devoid of informational content, and, is, thus, meaningless

See my point?. If so, can you respond?

 

[Della]

WmJackP, I think you are under the impression that a person is a singularity like the digit one. Even for humans this isn’t the case. We are more than our physical selves. We are also mind, spirit/soul.

Even science must bow to the reality that we are a complexity not a singularity since it takes more than one kind of science to treat the malfunctioning human being. Therefore we have psychiatry as well podiatry.

In speaking about the Trinity, we are saying that God reveals himself as three persons in one. How that can be is the mystery not that he is what he is. Nor can we fully grasp this since this kind of existence is too difficult for our finite minds. We are talking about an infinite Person here, after all.

Mathematics is fine in its own sphere, but it cannot explain everything. It cannot explain love or beauty or even truth. Materialism is severely limited in what it can describe. It cannot explain realities beyond it.

 

[fhansen]

I understand the Catholic faith to teach that God is a person (or more accurately, three persons in one God). What puzzles me is what does that statement actually mean? I fully realize that the stock response to my question generally is that “it is a mystery”. But I am not asking “how” this can be. I will leave the “how” alone, and, accept that the process of “how” this can be to remain a mystery. My question instead is what does the statement even mean?

Why, I think “meaning” must be assigned to the statement is because, unless a statement makes sense, it is usually seen as nonsense. For example, when one discusses the existence of several personalities in one body, this statement has no “meaning” or correspondence to reality unless one is attempting to describe a pathological condition. But, I realize Christians certainly do not mean this when describing their triune God. So, what do they mean?

Unless the statement has a “meaning” beyond its composite of words, it seems to me that it has no more informational content than the statement that “a square is a triangle”.

Personhood implies a being with a will, with attributes, with reason, with purpose as opposed to some vague pantheistic sort of above-it-all brainless void.

 

[davidv]

I am afraid your cited material appears to me to be simply a repetition of the same statement using different language.

The conflict with logic is self evident, isn’t it? 1 plus 1 plus 1 equals not one but three.

No it is not self evident unless you commit the strawman fallacy. 1+1+1 = 1 is a strawman of the Trinity. This strawman depends on another fallacy, equivocation. Person and god-head are not the same.

However, the conflict in logic is more extreme than simply to comprehend how a unity of three personalities can compress into a single godhead. Even, even if we allow that the statement to be true on the basis that the statement is, after all, a mystery of faith, we are still left with the problem of what is the informational content of such a statement.

To give an example: What does it mean to say that a triangle is really a circle? One can say that “a triangle is really a circle” and how this can be so is a mystery–but, the statement means absolutely nothing. It has no informational content. There is nothing informative about such a description because it has no “meaning”.

I am suggesting that what is inherently so in conflict with logic that it conveys no informative data does not then become worthy of belief by alibiing it as a mystery. I suspect that you would agree that it is unreasonable to expect a statement like “a square is really a triangle” to be believed. Although the statement certainly can be uttered consistently with the rules of grammar (it has a verb, a noun and a syntax), yet it is devoid of informational content, and, is, thus, meaningless

See my point?. If so, can you respond?

Your point is based on logical fallacies. As such it is an invalid point and can be dismissed as untrue because it conflicts with revealed truth.

 

[Richca]

I understand the Catholic faith to teach that God is a person (or more accurately, three persons in one God). What puzzles me is what does that statement actually mean? I fully realize that the stock response to my question generally is that “it is a mystery”. But I am not asking “how” this can be. I will leave the “how” alone, and, accept that the process of “how” this can be to remain a mystery. My question instead is what does the statement even mean?

Why, I think “meaning” must be assigned to the statement is because, unless a statement makes sense, it is usually seen as nonsense. For example, when one discusses the existence of several personalities in one body, this statement has no “meaning” or correspondence to reality unless one is attempting to describe a pathological condition. But, I realize Christians certainly do not mean this when describing their triune God. So, what do they mean?

Unless the statement has a “meaning” beyond its composite of words, it seems to me that it has no more informational content than the statement that “a square is a triangle”.

Hi wmjack,
The Trinity is that by which we believe the persons of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one God. The Trinity of persons are one God because they all possess one divine nature. The persons of the Trinity do not possess a distinct divine nature seperate from each other; for then we would have 3 Gods. There is only one divine nature or substance that each of the persons of the trinity have in common which is why the persons are one God.
For example, human beings are human beings because they all have a common nature just as lions are lions because they all have a common nature. However, though human beings all have a common nature, each human being or person possesses their own distinct human nature. There are as many human natures as there as people in the world. For each human person possesses their own intellect and will distinct from all other humans. For we do not say that Socrates and Plato possess a numerically one identical human nature. If they did, Socrates and Plato would be one human being.
So the Trinity of persons in God is not like that of distinct human beings or other distinct beings or natures. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit each have in common numerically one divine nature. There is only one intellectual power, i.e., one intellect and one will, in the Godhead which each of the persons of the Trinity possess or have in common. The Son and the Holy Spirit do not have an intellect and will or divine substance other than that of the Father which is why we say that the Trinity is one God.

 

[WmJackP]

WmJackP, I think you are under the impression that a person is a singularity like the digit one. Even for humans this isn’t the case. We are more than our physical selves. We are also mind, spirit/soul.

But yet you also say, within the very same theology, that God is simple–without parts or characteristics. As you say God is simple. For example: He is Existence or He is Love—this of course means that God does not have parts or characteristics. His identification is co-equal with “being” or “love”-----not altogether different than what Spinoza said of God. This paradigm is more consistent with pantheism than it is with the description you also give of God being in some form a triune god. But you renounce pantheism as a false doctrine, and, of course, teach that God is one with three Persons.

So, I have to ask again–what do you really mean when you say God is one in three persons.

I have difficulty accepting that one can honestly meet this apparent anomaly by calling it a mystery. It seems to me that do so requires a tacit admission that one does not know what it that one purports to believe. This is different than saying that it is a mystery how one God can exist as three distinct Persons. Just as I can believe in electricity even though I cannot comprehend how the phenomenon of electromagnetism performs the functions it does.

Yet in the case of electricity, I can explain what I mean by electric power and relate it definitionally to lights going on and the operation of appliances–even though I could never explain how it works. In the case of electricity, I know, at least, what it is I believe, although, it is a mystery how it can be so.

Therefore, I am curious how you justify your belief to such a statement as “there is one God–but three Persons in God” when, to me, it doesn’t seem to have any meaning. If you can help me understand that, I’d appreciate the wisdom. But I would expect you to honestly meet my question.

 

[Della]

Simplicity does not mean one dimensional. A Quaker chair may be said to be simple in design and yet it has all the same basic elements as a Queen Anne. It has 4 legs, a seat and a back–three essential elements that make a chair a chair and not a stool. You are misusing/misapplying/misunderstanding the term. I do understand quite well what I mean to say and what the Holy Trinity is and what he isn’t.

 

[DanAl]

I understand the Catholic faith to teach that God is a person (or more accurately, three persons in one God). What puzzles me is what does that statement actually mean? I fully realize that the stock response to my question generally is that “it is a mystery”. But I am not asking “how” this can be. I will leave the “how” alone, and, accept that the process of “how” this can be to remain a mystery. My question instead is what does the statement even mean?

Why, I think “meaning” must be assigned to the statement is because, unless a statement makes sense, it is usually seen as nonsense. For example, when one discusses the existence of several personalities in one body, this statement has no “meaning” or correspondence to reality unless one is attempting to describe a pathological condition. But, I realize Christians certainly do not mean this when describing their triune God. So, what do they mean?

Unless the statement has a “meaning” beyond its composite of words, it seems to me that it has no more informational content than the statement that “a square is a triangle”.

God (the “father”), since he’s omnipotent, he can create an infinite effect; the son, which is, to use a very imprecise term, a “clone” of the father. The holy spirit likewise is an effect of the father and the son.

Saying that the three persons of the trinity are one God is similar to saying, loosely speaking, that apples share the common attribute of applenes and humans share humanity. They share a common nature, being God, or divinity so to speak.

The three persons are distinct by virtue of their relations to each other; the son proceeds from the father, the holy spirit proceeds from the son and the father.

This is highly compressed, I know, but you can get the gist of it, I think.

 

[bmonk]

God (the “father”), since he’s omnipotent, he can create an infinite effect; the son, which is, to use a very imprecise term, a “clone” of the father. The holy spirit likewise is an effect of the father and the son.

Saying that the three persons of the trinity are one God is similar to saying, loosely speaking, that apples share the common attribute of applenes and humans share humanity. They share a common nature, being God, or divinity so to speak.

The three persons are distinct by virtue of their relations to each other; the son proceeds from the father, the holy spirit proceeds from the son and the father.

This is highly compressed, I know, but you can get the gist of it, I think.

You must be careful. God (as unity) shares more than a common nature–God shares a common homoousios, not just a nature, but an existence, a being. If we used “nature” as though humans shared one nature–we are all human–then the problem would not exist. We would simply have three examples or beings who are all divine. We insist that the unity of God is more than that.

In part, calling it a mystery does admit that we do not know fully what we are talking about. I don’t recall the theologian, but there is a quote to the effect that “whatever you say or understand of God is by analogy, and it is more wrong than it is right.” The problem with a mystery is that the truth is too big for the human mind to grasp fully. That means we always fall short of full understanding.

But we can still use it in parts. In quantum mechanics, we cannot fully characterize any element, such as the electron, as wave or as particle. It partakes of both, depending on the situation we put it in. So it is with God. We believe God is one, ever united and simple. We also believe that there are three persons in this one God. It is the how that is difficult–and we struggle to find ways to speak of it that are acceptable. Which means that we know plenty of ways that are inadequate.

 

[Chesster]

WmJackP

The definition for ‘person’ as applied to the trinity is: A real relation as subsistent in the divine nature. (This is from Aquinas).

See if this helps to understand. Snow is both white and cold. The whiteness and coldness are distinct in their relation to one another but they are one with snow.

 

[TheHolyGhost]

But yet you also say, within the very same theology, that God is simple–without parts or characteristics. As you say God is simple. For example: He is Existence or He is Love—this of course means that God does not have parts or characteristics. His identification is co-equal with “being” or “love”-----not altogether different than what Spinoza said of God. This paradigm is more consistent with pantheism than it is with the description you also give of God being in some form a triune god. But you renounce pantheism as a false doctrine, and, of course, teach that God is one with three Persons.

So, I have to ask again–what do you really mean when you say God is one in three persons.

I have difficulty accepting that one can honestly meet this apparent anomaly by calling it a mystery. It seems to me that do so requires a tacit admission that one does not know what it that one purports to believe. This is different than saying that it is a mystery how one God can exist as three distinct Persons. Just as I can believe in electricity even though I cannot comprehend how the phenomenon of electromagnetism performs the functions it does.

Yet in the case of electricity, I can explain what I mean by electric power and relate it definitionally to lights going on and the operation of appliances–even though I could never explain how it works. In the case of electricity, I know, at least, what it is I believe, although, it is a mystery how it can be so.

Therefore, I am curious how you justify your belief to such a statement as “there is one God–but three Persons in God” when, to me, it doesn’t seem to have any meaning. If you can help me understand that, I’d appreciate the wisdom. But I would expect you to honestly meet my question.

Id be curious to know the answer myself.

I guess each person of the Trinity has a different role, although I dont understand why that could not be accomplished by just one person of the Trinity since they are all divine.