Persons of trinity

  • Thread starter Thread starter javid
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
javid said:
Dear Jochoa,

if distinction is not inside the persons, then it is a creatyre, because it is not in God, and so it is not eternal,
Click to expand...
I believe you have a misunderstanding of what is being shared. Distinction is in the relation between persons. Distinction is not in a single person. For example, if I asked “how are you distinct,” we would have to follow up with “in relation to what/who” because distinction is found in relation.
…and so Trinity can’t be eternal, because distinction between persons is the origin of the Trinity. Trinity is eternal, that can’t be true.
Click to expand...
The Trinity can be eternal because Eternity has three distinct eternals, which are each Eternity.
(1) always was, (2) always is, (3) always will be, and the distinction between each is found in the relation to each other.

Always was is eternal, in addition, in relation to always is and always will be, always was WAS first.
Always is is also eternal, in addition, in relation to always was, always is proceeds from always was, and in relation to always will be, always is precedes.
Always will be is eternal, in addition, in relation to always was and always is, always will be proceeds.

Thanks for sharing your understandings! I am really enjoying pondering our discussion, and I look forward to more!
 
jochoa said:
I believe you have a misunderstanding of what is being shared. Distinction is in the relation between persons. Distinction is not in a single person. For example, if I asked “how are you distinct,” we would have to follow up with “in relation to what/who” because distinction is found in relation.
Click to expand...
Dear Jochoa If relation is not inside person, so ditinction is not real. Let me know, Is this relation self-exist or creature?
jochoa said:
The Trinity can be eternal because Eternity has three distinct eternals, which are each Eternity.
(1) always was, (2) always is, (3) always will be, and the distinction between each is found in the relation to each other.

Always was is eternal, in addition, in relation to always is and always will be, always was WAS first.
Always is is also eternal, in addition, in relation to always was, always is proceeds from always was, and in relation to always will be, always is precedes.
Always will be is eternal, in addition, in relation to always was and always is, always will be proceeds.

Thanks for sharing your understandings! I am really enjoying pondering our discussion, and I look forward to more!
Click to expand...
Yes, Trinity is etrnal, but not by explanations.
 
javid said:
Dear Jochoa If relation is not inside person, so ditinction is not real. Let me know, Is this relation self-exist or creature?
Click to expand...
Ahhh…I believe I finally understand your point. You should consider the will of a person to recognize how the relation is self-existent, outside the person, and not created.

When a person creates something, it is not the action of creating that is created, instead it is the creature that is created. The action of creating exists by the person willing it, aka self-existent.
When a person wills creation, the act of creating is the relation between creator and creature. Therefore, the relation is not in the person, instead the relation is in the persons (creator and creature).
 
jochoa said:
Ahhh…I believe I finally understand your point. You should consider the will of a person to recognize how the relation is self-existent, outside the person, and not created.

When a person creates something, it is not the action of creating that is created, instead it is the creature that is created. The action of creating exists by the person willing it, aka self-existent.
When a person wills creation, the act of creating is the relation between creator and creature. Therefore, the relation is not in the person, instead the relation is in the persons (creator and creature).
Click to expand...
Dear Jochoa

The relation that makes distinction between persons, is not a creator-creature relation. Relations that make distinction are in Divine Essence. God knows himself and loves him self, and so there are two relations in God: self-loving and self-knowing. So in God there are A Recognizer and lover person and A known person and A loved person, in God. It is the formulation of Trinity. My problem in this thread is not on Divine Essence, but on the Persons of Trinity, as I explained in first post.

Come on sir! I’m here to find a solution to my problems! Not to explain The Holy Trinity to my brothers(if you accept me as a brother!) I think you must ask a apologist to explain you the Holy Trinity.
 
javid said:
God knows himself and loves him self, and so there are two relations in God: self-loving and self-knowing. So in God there are A Recognizer and lover person and A known person and A loved person,…
Click to expand...
You have an incomplete understanding of God, the Holy Trinity.
Sure, in God there is the recognizer/lover and the known/loved. However, in addition God gives purpose to the known/loved, namely to recognize and be a lover. Therefore, just as doctrine states that each person is fully God, the known/loved are fully the recognizer/lover. In addition, since there can be any number of persons who are both the recognizer/lover and known/loved, it is important to recognize that there are only three distinct persons, the always was, always is (only eternally begotten), and always will be (eternally proceeding).
 
javid said:
I understood, But my problem is not solved. any way thank you.
Click to expand...
September 14 you wrote:“What is common can’t be the distinction, so if both distinction and what is common are in the essence, so [then] Essence has to [have] distinct parts.”

Parts are not necessary for relation. A real distinction is present without parts.

Aristotle, Categories, Part 4 -Expressions which are in no way composite signify substance, quantity, quality, relation, place, time, position, state, action, or affection. To sketch my meaning roughly, examples of substance are ‘man’ or ‘the horse’, of quantity, such terms as ‘two cubits long’ or ‘three cubits long’, of quality, such attributes as ‘white’, ‘grammatical’. ‘Double’, ‘half’, ‘greater’, fall under the category of relation; ‘in a the market place’, ‘in the Lyceum’, under that of place; ‘yesterday’, ‘last year’, under that of time. ‘Lying’, ‘sitting’, are terms indicating position, ‘shod’, ‘armed’, state; ‘to lance’, ‘to cauterize’, action; ‘to be lanced’, ‘to be cauterized’, affection.
No one of these terms, in and by itself, involves an affirmation; it is by the combination of such terms that positive or negative statements arise. For every assertion must, as is admitted, be either true or false, whereas expressions which are not in any way composite such as ‘man’, ‘white’, ‘runs’, ‘wins’, cannot be either true or false
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top