Three-in-One = Trinity?

[pro_universal]

Grace and Peace pro_universal,

The Trinity is a neo-platonist way of saying that God is Infinite, beyond the distinction of unity and plurality, being and non-being. In Christianity, in our modern day, it is used to establish a paradox not a contradiction but that was not it’s original intent.

Hello Chrisb, I want to say, I think this is one of the more insightful takes on the trinity I’ve ever seen. I think you are right to recognize its Greek philosophical roots, and to acknowledge that semitic traditions will have a problem understanding it…because the teaching is in a significant way a departure from the semitic version of monotheism.

I think you seem to be acknowledging here that we have a seemingly conflicting set of terms. By calling it a paradox, you are implying that the contradiction is only in terms and not in “reality”, if I could use the term that way. So I see what you’re saying, and it looks like we agree on this point…but my question then becomes:

Why would God make our salvation depend on something that will always, as long as we are human, appear to be a contradiction?

 

[exoflare]

Grace and peace exoflare,

Athanasius once said that “God became Man, so that Man might become God”. With this in mind, I don’t believe hamba2han’s 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x … ad infinitum would still be equal to 1 isn’t an unfair criticism. Christians are declaring not only a personal relationship with God but participation in the Godhead.

Christ in you remember… ?

Peace.

Because we’re talking about the Trinity, and the Trinity still applies even when we do participate in the Godhead… does it not? I don’t think giving credence to his 1x1x1x1 ad infinitum was a good idea because now you’re parallelling each individual Christian with each ‘1’ being thought of before as one of the three in the Trinity which isn’t correct.

 

[exoflare]

Anyway, this is why I’m not too keen on using analogies when discussing the Trinity… especially when it comes to discussing it with people who are just blindly trying to find something to attack.

It would have been a lot better if from the outset we had stuck to what the Trinity IS rather than what it is LIKE. At that point we could have left the definition as it were for those genuinely interested to mull over, rather than adding further confusion to the topic by trying to dumb it down for people who don’t know what a “contradiction” is…

 

[cestusdei]

You do not understand what “illogical” means.

“There is one God.” Unprovable. Not illogical. There’s nothing there that even possibly could constitute contradiction.

“There is one God, and each of three persons is wholly God, yet each person is distinct”…that’s the contradiction part.

Do you see the difference?

No. There are 10 Gods. Each distinct. Unprovable and not illogical. No contradiction. But I bet you don’t believe there are 10 Gods. God can be however many persons in one essence that He wants. I see no problem with God being one God in three Persons.

 

[chrisb]

Hello Chrisb, I want to say, I think this is one of the more insightful takes on the trinity I’ve ever seen. I think you are right to recognize its Greek philosophical roots, and to acknowledge that semitic traditions will have a problem understanding it…because the teaching is in a significant way a departure from the semitic version of monotheism.

Grace and Peace pro_universal,

No argument here concerning a departure with semitic monotheism.

I think you seem to be acknowledging here that we have a seemingly conflicting set of terms. By calling it a paradox, you are implying that the contradiction is only in terms and not in “reality”, if I could use the term that way. So I see what you’re saying, and it looks like we agree on this point…but my question then becomes:

Why would God make our salvation depend on something that will always, as long as we are human, appear to be a contradiction?

To escape philsophical idolatry because the One cannot be defined…

To define the One is to limit the One to a comparison of being (i.e. a dualism vs. non-being) and such would create an idol of the One and thus ceases to be the One. The One is beyond all dualism and thus beyond all comparisons.

What I am saying is largely neo-platonist in temper.

In semitic tradition (i.e Judaism) the One is expressed liberally in anthropomorphism. The One is thought of as a being even if an all-powerful being it creates an unnecessary dualism (i.e being vs. non-being). Islam does a better job at expressing the One with less anthropomorphism than it’s semitic sister Judaism.

Peace.

 

[chrisb]

Because we’re talking about the Trinity, and the Trinity still applies even when we do participate in the Godhead… does it not?

Grace and Peace exoflare,

This begs the question. If we participate in the Godhead don’t we continue to exist as individuals? Yet the Christian is taught the we are uniquely a part or member of the Body of Christ. How many members have been in the body sharing in the Sonship of the Son of God? One, ten, One hundred thousand, etc? All sharing the Divine Sonship in the Nous.

When we study early sources we find Christianity uniquely positioned between historic expessions of polytheism and monotheism.

I don’t think giving credence to his 1x1x1x1 ad infinitum was a good idea because now you’re parallelling each individual Christian with each ‘1’ being thought of before as one of the three in the Trinity which isn’t correct.

Christ in you. Divine Sonship. Indwelling Spirit. As Christians we each claim unique posession of the Divine Godhead and yet continue to exist as individuals. How would you explain it?

Peace.

 

[JimG]

If there is any distinction at all, then it must be that personhood adds something to Godhood…in which case, each person isn’t 100 percent God, but rather has a “personhood” part that distinguishes each person from the other.

You are perhaps thinking of the three persons as separate ontological entities.
They are not. There is only one ontological entity called God.

Does personhood “add something” to your humanity? Does it make you into two entities instead of one ontological human being? No. Personhood expresses your humanity in such a way as to make you a subject, capable of saying “I.”

“Adding” personhood to human nature does not create two human beings.

Neither does three persons in the one Godhead create three divine beings.

 

[catsrus]

Thus Pro_universal’s objections that something can’t be the same and different at the same time simply fails, in concept at the very least. But he won’t even acknowledge that.

There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.
You can lead the horse to water but not make him drink.
Suffer the little children to come unto me for such is the kingdom of heaven. (to have the faith of a child!)

As I claimed much earlier in this thread, either you believe or you do not. pro_universal does not believe.

 

[wussup]

First, I am LDS. There that’s out.
John had a lot to say about the subject. Catsrus asks, “Why would you even think that The Almighty God Creator should or would make Himself understood to mere man - His creation?” Jesus said, “This is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent”. It doesn’t say “might believe in a mystery”, and knowing God brings about Eternal Life.
Montabalm’s analogy has merit,he just has the equation wrong. John records Christ’s Praying, “Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; that they all may be one; as thou; Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us”. Thus, each individual shall share in the power of God, or as Paul taught the Romans, “heirs of God, Joint heirs through Christ”. Each of us becomes one with the Father. Furthermore, considering x quoting Genesis chapter 3, referring to Himself as Elohim, a plurality of God, I submit the following equation:

{F,S,H,I,…}E
Where F, the Father
S, the Son
H, the Holy Ghost
I…, Saved and Redeemed Believers
E, Oneness with the Father

Thus, we have a rational explanation of the relationship of beings in Eternal Life. The reason “trinity” is not mentioned is because there are lots more beings granted the Power of the Son of the Father than just three.

Bon Apetit

 

[cestusdei]

Mormons believe in a multitude of gods. So their concept of “trinity” is very different from what we are discussing here. It is in fact what the Muslims accuse us of, polytheism.

 

[pro_universal]

You are perhaps thinking of the three persons as separate ontological entities.
They are not. There is only one ontological entity called God.

Does personhood “add something” to your humanity? Does it make you into two entities instead of one ontological human being? No. Personhood expresses your humanity in such a way as to make you a subject, capable of saying “I.”

“Adding” personhood to human nature does not create two human beings.

Neither does three persons in the one Godhead create three divine beings.

The problem is that this analogy leaves out an important detail of the trinity, namely, that each person is 100 percent God.

If my personhood is identical to my humanity, fine…but if I have two personhoods, each 100 percent my humanity, yet not identical to each other…then I have a serious contradiction to deal with. If my personhood is my humanity, and a second personhood is also my humanity…then the first personhood and the second personhood must be identical to each other. If they aren’t, then logically, they are either a) not both my humanity or b) not 100 percent my humanity (ie, there is something that makes the two not identical above and beyond the identical portion.)

So it’s not that logic requires that personhood add something, it’s that in order for there to be distinctions between persons of the same substance, there must be something other than the substance that constitutes the distinction. Otherwise, you have the contradictory formula that follows:

1. Person 1 is 100 percent God
2. Person 2 is 100 percent God
3. Person 2 is not Person 1
4. There is only one God

The above is a textbook example of a contradiction. You can’t have identity in propositions 1 and 2, and still hold proposition three, given that there is only one God. A substitution (always possible, if in fact there is identity between the terms) will illustrate that:

Person 2-substitute for God (for example, the Father is God)

Person 1-substitute for God (for example, the Son is God)

Now, write proposition three with the substitutions, and you get:

[God] is not [God]

Do you see the problem now? There is no way to distinguish between the persons of the trinity without contradicting the claim that each person is 100 percent God. If it weren’t required that each person be identical to God, then it would be a different story, but that is required by the trinity.

 

[catsrus]

originally posted by wussup
First, I am LDS. There that’s out.
John had a lot to say about the subject. Catsrus asks, “Why would you even think that The Almighty God Creator should or would make Himself understood to mere man - His creation?” Jesus said, “This is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent”. It doesn’t say “might believe in a mystery”, and knowing God brings about Eternal Life.

You are straining to interpret that scripture to your own understanding of what Jesus meant.
As do all who do not have a True Church established by Christ Himself and guided by a Magisterium that itself is guided by The Holy Spirit.
Picking and choosing scripture and quoting out of context proves nothing.
Besides, as a mormon, since when do you quote the Bible? Unless it serves mormon puposes, of course.

 

[JimG]

The problem is that this analogy leaves out an important detail of the trinity, namely, that each person is 100 percent God.

In stating the matter in this way, the unstated assumption is that person and nature are the same thing. Only if you make the terms ‘person’ and ‘nature’ refer to distinct ontological entities is there a contradiction. But they are not distinct ontological entities.

Each person of the trinity does possess the one divine nature 100%.

The three persons are distinct in personhood, but not in entity.

How can the persons then be distinct? Only in their relation, not in their essence.

Now suppose, God, in knowing himself and speaking his word, spoke his essence only* imperfectly*. Suppose he spoke his essence, leaving out some essential characteristic, such as personhood. Could he really be God?

 

[pro_universal]

In stating the matter in this way, the unstated assumption is that person and nature are the same thing. Only if you make the terms ‘person’ and ‘nature’ refer to distinct ontological entities is there a contradiction. But they are not distinct ontological entities.

perhaps you can highlight the part of my post that you think makes this claim. I certainly don’t see this assumption. I was using the simple Athanasian creed formula:

The Son is God
The Father is God
The Holy Spirit is God.

The relationship between “nature” and “person” is irrelevant to that point; all that is necessary for the problem is identity between the three persons and God. It doesn’t matter what “nature” and “person” mean in that context, because if it did…you couldn’t say “The son is God.” You’d have to say “the Son is not God as a person, but the Son is God in nature” and so on…in which case you wouldn’t have the trinity, but something else.

Each person of the trinity does possess the one divine nature 100%.

Yes, which means that each person is identical to God. That means wherever you use the name of one of the persons, you could just as easily substitute God…in which case, you have my formula above to illustrate the contradiction.

How can the persons then be distinct? Only in their relation, not in their essence.

Again, this isn’t relevant to the contradiction. You don’t have to worry about this to see the problem.

Now suppose, God, in knowing himself and speaking his word, spoke his essence only* imperfectly*. Suppose he spoke his essence, leaving out some essential characteristic, such as personhood. Could he really be God?

That’s a speculative question about what the criteria for Godhood are, and it has absolutely zero relationship to the problem of the trinity. Maybe you think the trinity is necessary…but that doesn’t make it logically coherent.

As long as there is identity between the persons and God, you can’t claim both:

That the Persons are not identical and
That there is only one God.

If you claim both of those things in addition to “each person is identical to God”, you have a textbook contradiction. The only possible way out is if you find a way to claim that the persons aren’t identical to God…but then you don’t have the trinity.

 

[truthsilence]

Alexius, a book that is often recommend for those who have questions about the nature of the Most Holy Trinity is Frank Sheed’s Theology for Beginners. This work would be immensely helpful to you, especially if you truly seek to be faithful to the Church and all that Christ presents through it for our assent of Faith.

Thank you so much for this book recommendation!

I looked at amazon.com and was able to see inside the author’s chapter on the Trinity. I feel like he explains so beautifully, the “relationship” as I’ve come to understand, between the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. It was explained so well that I’ve ordered a copy of the book for myself.

In this book, Frank Sheed says there is One answer to the question “What is God?” He calls it One Source of operations*; a *Companionship *of Knowledge and Love *within One Divine Nature.

He then goes on to say that there are Three, Who totally possess that One Nature.

To the question “Who” are you?, each person could answer: “Father”, 'Son", “Holy Spirit”. But to the question “What” are you?" each can answer: “God”, because they each totally possess the Divine Nature.

I look forward to this author’s insights in the rest of the book. Just this section alone, really resonates.

Thanks again FCEGM.

 

[exoflare]

I look forward to this author’s insights in the rest of the book. Just this section alone, really resonates.

Thanks again FCEGM.

Yeah, it really is a good book.

 

[Montalban]

I think that Trinitarians are selling the concept of God way too short.

I mean, if 1 x 1 x 1 = 1, then why limit it to just 3 manifestations?

After all, since 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x … ad infinitum would still be equal to 1, then Christians might as well do like what the Hindus have done in incorporating God into everything in the Universe i.e. pantheism.

For a start you can at least recognise that 1x1x1 shows that each ‘1’ in that group is a different 1, but the same.

Even if we just limited it to 1x1 the point about two different things being also the same carries the truth.

Several Moslems want to argue that such basic maths is beyond their understanding.

We use this example because it’s so simple. Some might have tried various theories of hyper-space where one can be everywhere and nowhere at the same time, but we choose something even a primary school child can grasp.

Your objection fails because even 1x1x1x1x1x1x1x1x1x1x1x1x1 (and so on) still shows that one 1 can be the same and different from another 1 AT THE SAME TIME - which is the objection by Moslems.

I note you won’t deal with that.

 

[wussup]

You are straining to interpret that scripture to your own understanding of what Jesus meant.
As do all who do not have a True Church established by Christ Himself and guided by a Magisterium that itself is guided by The Holy Spirit.
Picking and choosing scripture and quoting out of context proves nothing.
Besides, as a mormon, since when do you quote the Bible? Unless it serves mormon puposes, of course.

How do you folks get the quotes to show on you postings like that? This is very tedious.

Really, no strain, but could you (without rolling your eyes, explain how Christ is out of context when he says he will share with us (become Joint Heirs)?

The point with my little equation is that Pro-Universal (literally, For-Catholics) is correct. The 1 x1 x 1=1 argument is ridiculous logically. This equation is saying that when you have 1 entity x 1 set you get 1. And when you have 1 set of 1 and multiply that same set by 1, you still get 1. That one is an individual being Sein, as Heidigger says. What you are really trying to say is A x B x C = A. While that is certainly false! My point with my equation is you have God the Father, and His Only Begotten Son in the Flesh, Jesus the Christ, and the Holy Ghost sharing with us as joint heirs in (as was pointed out Athanasius) Godhood. There is no such teaching as ‘Trinity’ in the Bible because God’s wish is to share with us Christs power (Heirs of God, Joint Heirs of Christ, Rom 8:17). Do you believe it is impossible for God to make us like Jesus (though certainly not his equal)?

 

[truthsilence]

Do you believe it is impossible for God to make us like Jesus (though certainly not his equal)?

It is absolutely possible.
Keep reading, wussup!.
And of course, praying.

 

[truthsilence]

Yeah, it really is a good book.

Can’t wait to receive it. I also ordered the one you had mentioned: “Theology and Sanity”.