(M.H-8)Nontrinitarianism

You need to clarify what you think is contradictory. The term "only begotten" is a Greek word that speaks of relationship. It is used in Heb 11 of Isaac. Isaac was not Abraham's only son therefore, the word is not about birth or beginnings but it is about love and preeminence.

Arguably not the best of analogies I am sorry to say. Stephen saw both the Father and the Son. You can't see Actinic, but you can see the Father.
Also light does not have a mind, so is a poor analogy to explain how one substance can have 3 different intelligences/minds that think differently and have different emotions, because they are individual.

The definition of the Trinity as it has come down to us represents an effort on the part of men, using human language, to describe something that cannot really be described in the sense that it can be exhaustively communicated.

When we call it a definition, we do not mean that we are defining God; i.e. offering an exhaustive and complete ontological description.

We mean that we are setting the limits within which orthodox discussion of His nature can take place.

I would humbly suggest that we hesitate before anathematizing those who merely struggle with the ideas involved or who merely, and unintentionally err in their efforts to articulate it.

On the other hand, the "definition" as we have it is the only one which does full justice to the Nature of God as He has revealed Himself to us.

I firmly believe that it offers the only proper and orthodox way of thinking about and discussing His nature as three-in-one.

Having said that, then, yes, any obstinate hanging on to another perspective even when the person doing so has been taught properly, or any outright rejection of the doctrine as it has been handed down to us places the one doing so outside of the Church.

You don't have to agree with me. An analogy is not a copy of something, but is a resemblance in some particulars between things otherwise unalike.


Maybe the anology that St. Patrick used is more appropriate for you, since you will be going to Ireland soon.

Legend has it that St. Patrick was responsible for ridding the Emerald Isle of snakes; but more importantly, it is said that Patrick used the shamrock as a symbol to explain the Trinity to Unbelievers, i.e., how God is One God in Three Persons. "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" (Matthew 28:19). Patrick would hold up a shamrock and challenge his hearers, "Is it one leaf or three?" "It is both one leaf and three," was their reply. "And so it is with God," he would conclude.

I know you mean well with the analogies and sometimes they do explain things that are true, but the leaves on the shamrock are near enough identical. And no, there is not one leaf. There are 3 leaves and a stem. It is one plant with 3 leaves. It being small doesn't make it a leaf instead of a plant.

Please... try to explain the trinity using logic, rather than analogies.

I thought that you wanted to understand the Trinity, but I think that it is evident that you are more interested in arguing against it. My mistake, Deraj.

Whoever denies the full deity of Jesus as being equal in deity to that of the Father does not have the Father.

"...This is the antichrist, even he that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: he that confesseth the Son hath the Father also." 1 Jn 2:22-23

I think that the statement that they are seperate persons with seperate but non-conflicting wills is contradictory to the statement that they are of one substance.

Also, nice point, but what has it got to do with Jesus Christ/Jehovah being seperate to Heavenly Father or not?

This, as well as 2 John 9-10, acknowledges the Father and his Son Jesus Christ only. Nothing here states a triune coequal nature of God. To presume a trinity from these verses is a total distortion of Scripture.