Can any one explain to me the Trinity plzzz???

PreacherMike · #11 26th May 2008, 02:22 AM

Originally Posted by didaskalos

Be seriousl
One can add individuals together and come up with a total.
One cannot multiply individuals and come up with a total.
In math, 1*1*1 does happen to equal 1.
The Father plus the Son = 2.
So I suppose I could rationally mutliply the Father and the Son (2) times the Holy Spirit (1) and come up with 2?
2 x 1 = 2
???
1X1X1=1 May be a cute and novel coincidence... but it has no meaning in rational thought when talking about the total individuals in a group. It that has no real applicaiton when detemining the rational nature of thte Godhead.

Really bro... each member of the Godhead amplifies the Godhead... no matter what way you do the math 1+1+1=3 not !... that is simple Math...

LovebirdsFlying · #12 26th May 2008, 03:37 AM

Originally Posted by meerkat

it's the old axiom - if you believe no explanation is necessary, if you don't beleive, no explanation is sufficient

Only God can give you that belief and revelation

Quoted for truth.

Explanations are mainly for those who believe already, and only want to know HOW it works. I've ventured into GA, and what I see there is a never-ending game of "try and convert me" played by atheists who want nothing more than to knock down the logic systematically with unanswerable questions. They have no intention of believing, and I'd rather focus my attention on leading the willing, not the unwilling. The unwilling, I pray for and will stand up for my beliefs, but I'm not going to debate.

Now, as for the OP, I think that's an honest question, not a "let me catch you saying something stupid so I can drag you through the mud" motive. In the end we can all only interpret the Trinity in our individual way. If modalism works for me, then it works for me.

Other people use the analogy of the egg--it has a shell, an albumen, and a yolk, but it's one egg. This analogy sort of falls short because the shell is only *part* of the egg, while each component of the Trinity is in itself *fully* God. For the egg analogy to work, the shell, albumen, and yolk must each be *fully* egg, not just a part of it.

The difference between my view and traditional Oneness, I think, is that Oneness denies there is a trinity at all. The proponents will not use the phrase "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit;" it's all Jesus. They baptize in the name of Jesus Christ, not "in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." I wonder about that one because it would beg the question of who was Jesus praying to in Gesthemane, and who was running things when Jesus was in the tomb?

All human explanations are, like the egg, going to crack up. Sorry for the horrible pun.

And, let me add the Scripture from 1 Corinthians 2:14--

The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

didaskalos · #13 26th May 2008, 04:09 AM

Originally Posted by LovebirdsFlying

Quoted for truth.

Explanations are mainly for those who believe already, and only want to know HOW it works. I've ventured into GA, and what I see there is a never-ending game of "try and convert me" played by atheists who want nothing more than to knock down the logic systematically with unanswerable questions. They have no intention of believing, and I'd rather focus my attention on leading the willing, not the unwilling. The unwilling, I pray for and will stand up for my beliefs, but I'm not going to debate.

Now, as for the OP, I think that's an honest question, not a "let me catch you saying something stupid so I can drag you through the mud" motive. In the end we can all only interpret the Trinity in our individual way. If modalism works for me, then it works for me.

Other people use the analogy of the egg--it has a shell, an albumen, and a yolk, but it's one egg. This analogy sort of falls short because the shell is only *part* of the egg, while each component of the Trinity is in itself *fully* God. For the egg analogy to work, the shell, albumen, and yolk must each be *fully* egg, not just a part of it.

The difference between my view and traditional Oneness, I think, is that Oneness denies there is a trinity at all. The proponents will not use the phrase "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit;" it's all Jesus. They baptize in the name of Jesus Christ, not "in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." I wonder about that one because it would beg the question of who was Jesus praying to in Gesthemane, and who was running things when Jesus was in the tomb?

All human explanations are, like the egg, going to crack up. Sorry for the horrible pun.

And, let me add the Scripture from 1 Corinthians 2:14--

I know what you are saying.. but are you really getting anywhere with an argument that can be presented by everyone and anyone?

IMO I think you are playing one extreme while ignoring the other.

For instance, which "god," (or "gods") was speaking when he (they), said:

Deut 4
39: Know therefore this day, and consider it in thine heart, that the LORD he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there is none else.

Which was speaking here:

Deut:5:
7: Thou shalt have none other gods before me.

Which Lord said this:
Deut:6:
4: Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:

Which of the three said this:
Isa:43:
11: I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.

I happen to believe that The Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit are all God, but I refuse to bow down to a man made tradition when the proponents of that tradition cannot even articulate it amongst themselves.

I fail to see how someone can believe something that they themselves admit cannot even be conceived and articulated. And to say it must be accepted as a matter of faith really is somewhat of a cop out. It is like saying "I believe mars is made out of cheese..." and then when asked why, they respond "I just choose to believe it by faith." I mean, we have to at least come up with some sort of concept or articulate some sort of theory, even if they are only based on revealed facts. Where is the revealed fact saying that God wants us to believe in the word "trinity?"

Faith based on faith is circular...

Besides, the modalist (oneness) believer can also say that they accept "by faith" that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit seen at the baptism of Jesus were all the same God manifesting in their three modes simultaneously. They too accept this "by faith" despite the obvious dilemma. So I am not sure any conclusion is derived by playing the faith card. We all have one... and they all only trump the others in our own minds.

LovebirdsFlying · #14 26th May 2008, 06:49 AM

This is why I try to discuss, not debate. "I believe this, and you believe that, and someone else belives the other," is fine with me. "I'm right and you're wrong, and I can prove my case better than you can" is not a game I play.

The water analogy was something God gave me in a dream. He can, will, and does choose to reveal His nature to others in different ways. I am only saying what I understand to be the truth. I'm not trying to make anyone else believe it the same way I do.

Peace.

PreacherMike · #15 26th May 2008, 06:53 AM

Originally Posted by LovebirdsFlying

This is why I try to discuss, not debate. "I believe this, and you believe that, and someone else belives the other," is fine with me. "I'm right and you're wrong, and I can prove my case better than you can" is not a game I play.

The water analogy was something God gave me in a dream. He can, will, and does choose to reveal His nature to others in different ways. I am only saying what I understand to be the truth. I'm not trying to make anyone else believe it the same way I do.

Peace.

Exactly, each one can only quote HIS OWN revelation...

Mike.

didaskalos · #16 26th May 2008, 07:06 AM

I agree it is usually not successful to try and talk people into believing anything. I just go by the word and when it says God is one.. well. I like dreams also. But I like the word best!

Originally Posted by LovebirdsFlying

This is why I try to discuss, not debate. "I believe this, and you believe that, and someone else belives the other," is fine with me. "I'm right and you're wrong, and I can prove my case better than you can" is not a game I play.

The water analogy was something God gave me in a dream. He can, will, and does choose to reveal His nature to others in different ways. I am only saying what I understand to be the truth. I'm not trying to make anyone else believe it the same way I do.

Peace.

didaskalos · #17 26th May 2008, 07:07 AM

Originally Posted by PreacherMike

Exactly, each one can only quote HIS OWN revelation...

Mike.

Amen...
This is mine:

Deut 4
39: Know therefore this day, and consider it in thine heart, that the LORD he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there is none else.

Deut:6:
4: Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:

Isa:43:
11: I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.

PreacherMike · #18 26th May 2008, 07:20 AM

And this is mine...

1 John 5:7 (King James Version)

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

LovebirdsFlying · #19 26th May 2008, 07:21 AM

Originally Posted by didaskalos

Amen...
This is mine:

Deut:6:4: Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:

I was just thinking specifically of that one.

There is room, I think, for different interpretation. Taking the Bible literally can also go to extremes--I just mentioned on the Fundamentalism forum that I have never met anyone who takes Matthew 18:8-9 literally.

And what about Revelation and other prophecy passages? They are symbolic. The Bible is not always literal. (I am not directing this statement at you specifically, didaskalos. I am talking to the public at large, whoever may be reading.)

The point I'm making is that someone, somewhere, can find a way not to take Deut. 6:4 literally either. I do, but others might not.

And, since I seem to be full of analogies tonight, I am reminded of the several blind men who each felt a different part of an elephant, then walked away arguing.

"The elephant is like a wall," said the man who had felt its side.

"No, the elephant is like a fan," said the man who had felt its ears flapping.

"You're both wrong, the elephant is like a tree trunk," said the man who had felt its leg.

And so on. The one who had felt its tail said the elephant is a rope, the one feeling its trunk said it is like a hose, and the one feeling the tip of the tusk said it is like a spear. Each was convinced that he alone was right.

Don't we all approach God, or indeed even the Word, in this way? How many of us focus on one part of it, then don't make room for other parts to come in along with?

PreacherMike · #20 26th May 2008, 07:51 AM

Well that verse specifically has a lot of meaning behind it... Deut:6:4: Hear, O Israel: The LORD (YHVH sing.)our God (Elohim pl.) is one LORD (YHVH sing.)