Trinity and Mathematics?

[STT]

There is one God which in nature has three relations – that is one.

I can understand that. I am, however, asking what is person. I am not asking what is relation.

 

[Vico]

the term “person” or “hypostasis” to designate the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the real distinction among them

Catechism:

• the term “person” or “hypostasis” to designate the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the real distinction among them

 

[Hodos]

So God had revealed that God is one! There is no any revelation about Trinity. Trinity is a doctrine which concluded by some interpretations but not sourced from revelation.

There actually is throughout the scriptures since the scriptures affirm all of the tenets that are found in the doctrine of the Trinity:

• There is one God. I am certain you don’t disagree with this point, so I can dispense with this one.
• The Father is God. I am certain you also agree with this point.
• The Son is God. John 1:1-18, John 8:58, Philippians 2:5-11; Titus 2:13, 2 Peter 1:1 among others demonstrate this fact.
• The Holy Spirit is God. Continued references throughout OT name the Spirit of YHWH as a personal entity. Acts 5:3 refers to the Holy Spirit as God as does Hebrews 2:4.
• The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are separate distinct persons. Too many references in the NT to even list, however the account of Christ’s baptism in Matthew and the Great commission of Matthew 28 are sufficient to demonstrate this as is Jesus priestly prayer in John 14-15.

 

[STT]

The persons are all the same “thing” (to use crude terminology). The opposition between them is simply relational. There is no other real distinction between the persons but their relations. It’s God’s simplicity in fact that intellectually allows us to speculatively understand why the procession results in what we call persons or hypostases. If God was not simple that would not be so.

A relation by definition is something which relates two different things. What is the relation between an apple and the same apple?

 

[Wesrock]

I know it is preferred to sum up in our own words, but due to time constraints, I will say Saint Thomas Aquinas does address the question in Summa Theologica, First Part, Question 29. There are many interesting parts to all four Articles under this question, but I’ll point to Article 4.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1029.htm#article4

To quote parts,

A difficulty arises concerning the meaning of this word “person” in God, from the fact that it is predicated plurally of the Three in contrast to the nature of the names belonging to the essence; nor does it in itself refer to another, as do the words which express relation.

…

Also, it is one thing to ask the meaning of this word “person” in general; and another to ask the meaning of “person” as applied to God. For “person” in general signifies the individual substance of a rational figure. The individual in itself is undivided, but is distinct from others. Therefore “person” in any nature signifies what is distinct in that nature: thus in human nature it signifies this flesh, these bones, and this soul, which are the individuating principles of a man, and which, though not belonging to “person” in general, nevertheless do belong to the meaning of a particular human person.

Now distinction in God is only by relation of origin, as stated above (I:28:2 and I:28:3), while relation in God is not as an accident in a subject, but is the divine essence itself; and so it is subsistent, for the divine essence subsists. Therefore, as the Godhead is God so the divine paternity is God the Father, Who is a divine person. Therefore a divine person signifies a relation as subsisting. And this is to signify relation by way of substance, and such a relation is a hypostasis subsisting in the divine nature, although in truth that which subsists in the divine nature is the divine nature itself. Thus it is true to say that the name “person” signifies relation directly, and the essence indirectly; not, however, the relation as such, but as expressed by way of a hypostasis. So likewise it signifies directly the essence, and indirectly the relation, inasmuch as the essence is the same as the hypostasis: while in God the hypostasis is expressed as distinct by the relation: and thus relation, as such, enters into the notion of the person indirectly. Thus we can say that this signification of the word “person” was not clearly perceived before it was attacked by heretics. Hence, this word “person” was used just as any other absolute term. But afterwards it was applied to express relation, as it lent itself to that signification, so that this word “person” means relation not only by use and custom, according to the first opinion, but also by force of its own proper signification.

I don’t expect that to satisfy STT, but others might be curious to delve into it further.

 

[lelinator]

There is no other real distinction between the persons but their relations.

How can there be a relation between two things without a distinction between those two things?

For example, I can understand the relationship between my body and my mind, and I can see where those two things can be said to constitute one thing, but I’m also aware that there’s a distinction between those two things.

In God the Father and God the Son, there’s a relationship between them, but doesn’t that relationship need to be based on a distinction, rather than the relationship being the distinction?

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

There is no other real distinction between the persons but their relations.

How can there be a relation between two things without a distinction between those two things?

The distinction is relational only, not essential. The one essence has four relations.

• The Father generates the Son.
• The Son is generated by the Father.
• The Father and Son spirate the Holy Spirit.
• The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son.

But what the essence of the Father is and what the Son is are the same thing. There is one essence, the difference is only the real relational distinction between generating (paternity) and being generated (filiation). The generation here is related to God’s intelligible act of knowing. It is only because God is Simple that God does so through his essence. There’s a lot more depth to this and a need to build on some core concepts which helps this to make sense and not sound either trivial or like a foreign language, but alas, space.

 

[EndTimes]

RE: Each Person of what is referred to as The Trinity - The CCC sums it up rather neatly…

The balance of this post are direct quotations from Catholic Teachings.

______________________________________________________________________________

252 The Church uses the term “substance” (rendered also at times by “essence” or “nature”) to designate the divine being in its unity, the term “person” or “hypostasis” to designate the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the real distinction among them, and the term “relation” to designate the fact that their distinction lies in the relationship of each to the others.

The dogma of the Holy Trinity

[254] The divine persons are really distinct from one another .

"God is one but not solitary. “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."

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."

The divine Unity is Triune.

________________________________________________

 

[lelinator]

The distinction is relational only, not essential. The one essence has four relations.

• The Father generates the Son.
• The Son is generated by the Father.
• The Father and Son spirate the Holy Spirit.
• The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son.

One question just to clarify, if the Father generates the Son, then doesn’t that imply that the Father causes the Son?

 

[EndTimes]

What do 4 dimensions have to do with “Eternity”?

A lot - if you - as physicists before have spoken of

Visualize Time - not as a snapshot - but rather as a continuum of actual 3D snapshots…
from, eg., The Past to the Present to the Future - aka - Eternity.

In other words - looking at for instance just a slice of Eternity… as if a genuine holographic movie -
realized in its Totality - as God Can. We can understand that to a degree - but we can’t realize it.

E.G. visualise You not in 2D but in 3D alive: from the moment of Conception throughout your Life

That… Is 3Dimensions Plus Time - AKA 4D - in the living sense and as God Knows All Eternity

 

[Wm777]

Yet it is a single substance.

While it may not explain the mystery of the Trinity, a single substance can in fact have multiple properties.

Take salt, for instance.

Salt can be white, but it can also be tart, and it can be more or less granular.

Thus, you have one basic substance with three different properties.

As for the basic theory of the Trinity, the Father’s love for the Son, and the Son’s Love for Father is said to be so great it forms a third person in and of itself, which we know as the Paraclete (the Holy Spirit).

How each member of the Trinity is infused as such is probably the better part of the mystery. And, even if we did know, it would probably beyond our control. An infusion of grace and spirit occurs as God wishes, not at man’s bidding.

 

[Vico]

…
One question just to clarify, if the Father generates the Son, then doesn’t that imply that the Father causes the Son?

No, the relations are eternal – no beginning or end.

 

[lelinator]

No, the relations are eternal – no beginning or end.

That’s why I didn’t say “generated”, I said “generates”. If the Father generates the Son, doesn’t that mean that the Father causes the Son, even if that’s an eternal event, doesn’t the Father still cause the Son?

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

The distinction is relational only, not essential. The one essence has four relations.

• The Father generates the Son.
• The Son is generated by the Father.
• The Father and Son spirate the Holy Spirit.
• The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son.

One question just to clarify, if the Father generates the Son, then doesn’t that imply that the Father causes the Son?

It depends on how you define cause, I suppose. Rather than discuss semantics… Understanding God as one essence, these processions are eternal, never beginning or ending, and are essential (not accidental) to God, nor something the Father, as if he were a separate being, chooses to do. It is by the intrinsic principle of God’s essence and not any external factors that their subsist these four relations within it. It’s just what God is and that he is through and as his essence knowing and willing.

I guess, to go back to cause, cause in traditional discourse is an external actor or principle, rather than intrinsic.

 

[AlNg]

The persons are all the same “thing”

How can they then pray to One Another and imply that the will of One is different from the will of the other? Not my will, but thine be done?

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

The persons are all the same “thing”

How can they then pray to One Another and imply that the will of One is different from the will of the other? Not my will, but thine be done?

Because Jesus had a distinct human will in addition to the divine will.

You’re mixing up the Trinitarianism theology with Christology.

 

[lelinator]

Understanding God as one essence,

I’m actually still trying to understand how there’s a relationship between the Father and the Son, but no distinction.

Let me go back to the example of my own body and mind. I can understand how the two things together could be said to constitute one thing…me. But there’s a very definite distinction between the two. Even though they’re just one thing.

So I can understand that the Father and Son could be said to constitute one thing. But what I can’t comprehend is how there’s no distinction between them, especially when you state that the Father generates the Son. It seems to me that that, in and of itself, indicates a distinction that’s more than just relational. The Father can do something that the Son can’t. Thus there must be attributes that the Father possesses that the Son doesn’t.

I can still see how they could be referred to as one essence, but not without a distinction that’s more than just relational.

 

[AlNg]

Because Jesus had a distinct human will in addition to the divine will.

Was His human will in complete harmony with His Divine will or could they differ?

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

Understanding God as one essence,

I’m actually still trying to understand how there’s a relationship between the Father and the Son, but no distinction.

Let me go back to the example of my own body and mind. I can understand how the two things together could be said to constitute one thing…me. But there’s a very definite distinction between the two. Even though they’re just one thing.

So I can understand that the Father and Son could be said to constitute one thing. But what I can’t comprehend is how there’s no distinction between them, especially when you state that the Father generates the Son. It seems to me that that, in and of itself, indicates a distinction that’s more than just relational. The Father can do something that the Son can’t. Thus there must be attributes that the Father possesses that the Son doesn’t.

I can still see how they could be referred to as one being, but not without a distinction that’s more than just relational.

The processions being related to the intelligible acts of knowing and willing is very, very commonly held positions going back to early Christianity. I’ll try to frame Saint Thomas Aquinas’ speculative theology on the subject in my own words, though for topic such as this it’d be better if I sat down and wrote a paper. Saint Thomas employs his philosophy of the mind on this as well, but I am not going to go in detail into that.

You know via your intellect, but your intellect and knowledge is not your essence, and what you know is peicemeal, not all at once, and not identical to you.

God is simple. Whereas your intellect is a part of you and what you do, God is his intellect and power and will. When we use these words for God, we’re referring to the same thing in every case, his essence, which we’re relating to us and how it works by analogy to our way of being. God’s essence is his intellect and is his intelligible act of knowing, but that’s just us looking through it through a narrow lens, as it is similar in basic aspects to how we know but also exists in a way that transcends our limitations (we’re not simple, it’s a mode of being foreign to our experience).

Anyway, God’s essence is the knowing of his essence. And his knowing is of all things all at once, not successive or piecemeal. It sounds trivial, but the knowing is a generation, an activity. What is knowing and what is being known are absolutely identical. It isn’t made of different matter and it doesn’t exist in a different locstion. There is no distinction between God’s essence as knowing and as known. They are by identity of what they are the same, only relationally distinct. But in the essence there is the knowing (generating) and being known (the generated). The knower and the known are the same object (so to speak), but generating and being generated are opposing relations that subsist in this object/essence eternally. God knows and is known by himself, these are mutually opposing relations that don’t reduce to each other.

 

[Wesrock]

Addendum: And generating and being generated are related to Paternity and Filiation, as it’s related to by analogy begetting in creatures as it’s the generation by the nature of a like nature (in a more absolute and perfect way), which is what is different from what happens when humans know things. Our act of knowing doesn’t generate it’s own naturally existing nature. It’s not how we beget, but due to God’s simplicity it can be related by analogy to both our act of intellection and our natural generation of offspring.

It could definitely be drawn out (explained) more.