The Trinity

[examining_life]

Hi everyone, first of all I’m not very computer savvy so I hope this is in the right place. I’m attracted to Christianity but have serious difficulties with the trinity concept. I can get on board with the psychological model, I.e. that the three “persons” are just different parts of the architecture of God’s mind: His Word, His wisdom etc. My problem is with the social model, which seems to be the predominant one at the moment. I just don’t see how it differs from polytheism. Zeus, Appollo and Aphrodite all have the same “essence” - they are all gods - but are different persons. How is the (social) trinity any different?

It seems to me that the whole point of God is that he is a person, so to insist on three “persons” waves goodbye to monotheism. God is then redefined to mean pantheon, and I notice a lot of social trinitarians prefer the word “godhead” as a way of eliding this inconsistency. I’m not a theologian, but from what I’ve read it seems like the word hypostasis only came to mean “person” when persona was translated from Latin into English and that “three persons” was thus not the original doctrine. I’d be very grateful if someone could clarify this for me.

 

[noobio]

Hi everyone, first of all I’m not very computer savvy so I hope this is in the right place. I’m attracted to Christianity but have serious difficulties with the trinity concept. I can get on board with the psychological model, I.e. that the three “persons” are just different parts of the architecture of God’s mind: His Word, His wisdom etc. My problem is with the social model, which seems to be the predominant one at the moment. I just don’t see how it differs from polytheism. Zeus, Appollo and Aphrodite all have the same “essence” - they are all gods - but are different persons. How is the (social) trinity any different?

The trinity is different because the three person of the trinity are of the same essence, and are only one God. They are not Gods, but only one God. The Father, who is God, the Son who is God, and the Holy Ghost who is one God, are all one God, The persons are seperate from eachother, but they are somehow the same God.

It seems to me that the whole point of God is that he is a person, so to insist on three “persons” waves goodbye to monotheism. God is then redefined to mean pantheon, and I notice a lot of social trinitarians prefer the word “godhead” as a way of eliding this inconsistency. I’m not a theologian, but from what I’ve read it seems like the word hypostasis only came to mean “person” when persona was translated from Latin into English and that “three persons” was thus not the original doctrine. I’d be very grateful if someone could clarify this for me.

The trinity is one God, but three persons who form one God. I don’t think there is a a way to simplify it , I think one must just accept it.

And what does the pantheon have to do with this ? I thought it was a temple to honour gods which was build by Romans ?

I don’t think my post will help at all, but Il post any way.

 

[meltzerboy]

Hi everyone, first of all I’m not very computer savvy so I hope this is in the right place. I’m attracted to Christianity but have serious difficulties with the trinity concept. I can get on board with the psychological model, I.e. that the three “persons” are just different parts of the architecture of God’s mind: His Word, His wisdom etc. My problem is with the social model, which seems to be the predominant one at the moment. I just don’t see how it differs from polytheism. Zeus, Appollo and Aphrodite all have the same “essence” - they are all gods - but are different persons. How is the (social) trinity any different?

It seems to me that the whole point of God is that he is a person, so to insist on three “persons” waves goodbye to monotheism. God is then redefined to mean pantheon, and I notice a lot of social trinitarians prefer the word “godhead” as a way of eliding this inconsistency. I’m not a theologian, but from what I’ve read it seems like the word hypostasis only came to mean “person” when persona was translated from Latin into English and that “three persons” was thus not the original doctrine. I’d be very grateful if someone could clarify this for me.

A divine Person does not mean the same as a human person. Think of the Trinity as three torches which, when grouped next to one another, produce one flame. The flame is the one G-d with one essence; however, the three torches are distinct, though not separate, Persons of the one G-d.

 

[robindenver]

This issue is one I have struggled with - the concept of the trinity.

I would say this. G-d’s true nature is not accessible to humanity, insofar as we can completely understand it. There is a saying: “If I knew Him, I would be Him.”

Specifically, G-d is One, and there is only one G-d. “Person” is a concept we apply to G-d in trying to understand Him in human terms. In these terms, G-d manifests Himself to humanity as three persons.

That is how I understand it, but it is really beyond human understanding. It must be accepted on faith.

It does not in any way imply polytheism, which is the belief in multiple gods.

 

[examining_life]

A divine Person does not mean the same as a human person. Think of the Trinity as three torches which, when grouped next to one another, produce one flame. The flame is the one G-d with one essence; however, the three torches are distinct, though not separate, Persons of the one G-d.

Thanks for this. My difficulty is really with the definition of the word “person” being used, and the fact that personhood is what distinguishes gods from impersonal forces like gravity (gravity is omnipresent and holds the universe together but we don’t worship it because it’s impersonal). So to say “three persons” strongly suggests three gods, unless we do a bit of semantic trickery by making god into a “what” rather than a “who”, where as I said we really just redefine god to mean pantheon.

William Lane Craig likes the analogy of the Greek myth Cerberus, but this doesn’t work since Cerberus is, essentially, three dogs who just happened to be joined at the body. Do a bit of cosmic surgery on him and you’re left with three dogs. I accept that we shouldn’t expect to understand God, but I find it hard to believe He would have us place our faith in what could easily pass for a contradiction, especially one that appeared to violate the principle of monotheism. Basically what I’m looking for is an authoritative definition of “person” in this context. Frankly I believe Muslims and Jews are right to attack the trinity until Christians can get their act together about what exactly is meant by the doctrine.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

Can the greatest commandments possibly describe how Christ is one with the Father? When Jesus spent his time on Earth he would have lived by these commandments,

Jesus loves God the Father with all his heart, soul, mind and strength.
Jesus loves each and every one of us as he loves himself.

Does God the Father respond to this love?

God the Father loves God the Son, with all his heart, soul, mind and strength.
God the Father loves each and everyone of us as he loves himself.

Can God the Father or Son love us more than they love themselves.

Can the spirit be the power of God’s love working through the greatest commandments?

This passage links the spirit and the greatest commandments…
1 Samuel 18 (New International )

1 Jonathan became one in spirit with David, and he loved him as himself****

 

[TypesAndShadows]

Thanks for this. My difficulty is really with the definition of the word “person” being used, and the fact that personhood is what distinguishes gods from impersonal forces like gravity (gravity is omnipresent and holds the universe together but we don’t worship it because it’s impersonal). So to say “three persons” strongly suggests three gods, unless we do a bit of semantic trickery by making god into a “what” rather than a “who”, where as I said we really just redefine god to mean pantheon.

William Lane Craig likes the analogy of the Greek myth Cerberus, but this doesn’t work since Cerberus is, essentially, three dogs who just happened to be joined at the body. Do a bit of cosmic surgery on him and you’re left with three dogs. I accept that we shouldn’t expect to understand God, but I find it hard to believe He would have us place our faith in what could easily pass for a contradiction, especially one that appeared to violate the principle of monotheism. Basically what I’m looking for is an authoritative definition of “person” in this context. Frankly I believe Muslims and Jews are right to attack the trinity until Christians can get their act together about what exactly is meant by the doctrine.

Sometimes, I think I get some insight into how the Trinity works, but I’m not sure how well I can articulate it. Considering the example of St Augustine, and the story of the child on the beach, I tend to think it must be approached like quantum mechanics. That is, there are certainly things that we know are true, and things that we know aren’t true, and we have some relationships that work and can use these things in a useful way, but we cannot understand on an intuitive level how it actually works and what it means, beyond the few things we know for certain.

If you spent your time trying to understand what was actually really happening when learning quantum mechanics, you’d never get round to learning how to use it. If you spend all your time worrying exactly what the word “person” means in the Trinity, I suspect you’ll never get around to anything else! “Person” is a word chosen because everyone could agree it was true in certain set phrases, just like the Holy Spirit “proceeds” because everyone agreed that word choice was fine. That doesn’t mean everyone involved agreed on what those words meant! See the “filioque” controversy, for example. It’s like the different interpretations of quantum mechanics, where everyone agrees on the equations but argues about what they actually mean.

 

[Trebor135]

There’s also the analogy of the sun. I hope someone knowledgeable on the trinity here will be able to give a clear and concise explanation of it.

 

[jochoa]

I’d be very grateful if someone could clarify this for me.

Thank you very much for asking, for I deeply enjoy pondering the Holy Trinity. Please consider the following concepts:

Before anything was created, God came to exist as a single living cell that could think, feel, and will, the same exact image and likeness we, both male and female, are created, as well as the same exact image of the Host of the Eucharist. Before God existed as a single living cell, there was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
During this time, God had an unbreakable peace and perfect happiness, however, He wanted to experience and share the means to experience a limitless happiness. In order to experience a limitless happiness, He needed three things: 1. free-willed beings who would Love like He Loves to ensure there would eternally be an unbreakable peace with the opportunities to experience limitless happiness. 2a. He had to remain the all-knowing God, who would be capable of delivering perfect judgments on the determination as to who enters the Kingdom of Heaven. 2b. He had to give up knowing everything, in order to experience a limitless happiness in the Kingdom of Heaven. 3. A plan that would reveal to the world the incredible depths of patience and kindness True Love has.
Therefore, at the fullness of time in the planning of creation, the single cell duplicated. The second cell is of the exact same body, but the mind of the initial cell did not carry over. Since the will proceeds from the mind and body, as a full human, the second cell’s will can be both divine and human. And since God needed a plan to reveal to the world the incredible depths of patience and kindness True Love has without sacrificing the free-will of His creations, He had to demonstrate perfect patience and kindness through an unjustly impatient, mean, and cruel Crucifixion. During this act, He revealed His Holy Spirit, but in order to fulfill the fullness of His purpose for creation, He needs a free-willed creation to become eternally one with His Spirit while living on earth.
Then the initial cell ensured His plan to bring free-willed creations to Love as He Loves would work, therefore He thought of all that would happen until one free-willed being would perfectly align his/her spirit with His Spirit. Since the free-willed creation becomes at one with the Spirit of God, it can be stated that s/he is One with the Spirit of God and therefore, is the Spirit of God. Please note, currently I am unable to reason if the third cell was created then or if the third cell is created near the end of time during creation. If the third cell was created at the end of the planning of creation, then the Holy Spirit, as a distinct person, could have literally spoken through the prophets, but since we do not profess to believe the Holy Spirit comes down from Heaven, I cannot declare that.
Therefore, before creation there is the Father (the initial cell, which remains eternally unchanging and is the law-maker and judge), the Son (the second cell, which is the only begotten Son, who is one in body with the Father, through whom all things were made, who comes down from Heaven in creation to become man), and the Holy Spirit, whether already created or not, (the third cell, which has aligned his/her will perfectly with the will of the Father, by becoming at one with the Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ).

Now the main method I have learned to grow closer in oneness with the Spirit of God is by heavily focusing on mastering the Greatest Commandments, which through trials and tribulations, have come to the following understanding: Always want to learn, perfect, and spread the means to patience and kindness and motivation for God with all the body, and with all the spirit, and with all the thoughts, and with all the will, equally towards others and yourself, so that as a society every relationship and individual will have an unbreakable peace, limitless happiness, and unstoppable energy.

Thoughts?