Please explain the Trinity

[Ken-1122]

I realize several people have asked for an explanation of the Trinity, but the answers given doesn’t quite make sense to me and because I can’t respond on those threads I have to start my own. So here is my questions:
*Is Jesus, God, and the Holy Spirit the same God with 3 nicknames? if so how could one be the son and the other the father?
*Are they each a fraction of a God and only when together they are a complete God? (kinda like the "egg white, yolk, and shell" explanation I've heard before
*Or are they each 3 separate Gods? (Polytheism)
If something different please explain

Ken

 

[hedrick]

I realize several people have asked for an explanation of the Trinity, but the answers given doesn’t quite make sense to me and because I can’t respond on those threads I have to start my own. So here is my questions:
*Is Jesus, God, and the Holy Spirit the same God with 3 nicknames? if so how could one be the son and the other the father?
*Are they each a fraction of a God and only when together they are a complete God? (kinda like the "egg white, yolk, and shell" explanation I've heard before
*Or are they each 3 separate Gods? (Polytheism)
If something different please explain

Ken

No, neither of these things. First, be careful about what the Trinity is and isn't. It is *not* an explanation for Jesus being God. That's the doctrine of the Incarnation. The 2nd person of the Trinity, the Son, is incarnate in Jesus, but the Trinity really isn't explaining that. The Trinity explains what God always was, even before the human Jesus was born.

So why the Trinity? The way it came to be historically is complex. I'm going to skip that. I think the best answer now is this:

So if Jesus shows us God, what kind of God does he show us? And the answer is a God who loves, and a God who is willing to join us and show us by example how to live. Furthermore, we don't think he suddenly changed in 4 BC. If God is love, and experiences personal relationships, then this is part of his nature, and was always in him, even before the creation of the world.

That implies a God who has a bit more complexity than the typical monotheistic God. In other monotheistic religions, God is the Father, the source of everything, but that's it. What the Trinity says is that there's enough of a distinction within God that he can experience personal relationship. We speak of this as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, with the Holy Spirit being in effect the bond between Father and Son (at least in Western theology).

The English term "person" can be misleading. This isn't three separate people, in the normal English sense. That's why you'll always hear Christians refer to three persons but not three people. Rather the persons are centers for personal relationship, but they are within a single God. Note that according to orthodox doctrine, God has only one will. So he's probably closer to a single human being than three human beings. But he's a single being who has enough distinction that he can experience both the creative love of the Father and the obedience of the Son.

Many Christians say that the relationship among the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is the ideal which forms a model for all human relationships. Indeed he is inviting us to join him in his love.

I wouldn't say the three persons are fractions. God isn't broken up into three pieces, as far as we can tell. Rather, he is a single being who experiences in a three-fold way.

There are actually at least two ways of understanding the Trinity, which are both accepted officially as being OK. THey tend to be associated with the East and the West. The explanation I've given you is a Western one. It starts with God as one, and talks about how we can understand some distinction within the one. The Eastern approach tends to start with the three persons and talks about how they are really one. I can't explain the Eastern approach properly, but be aware that when you talk with people about the Trinity they may not always use exactly the same explanation.

 

[Ken-1122]

No, neither of these things. First, be careful about what the Trinity is and isn't. It is *not* an explanation for Jesus being God. That's the doctrine of the Incarnation. The 2nd person of the Trinity, the Son, is incarnate in Jesus, but the Trinity really isn't explaining that. The Trinity explains what God always was, even before the human Jesus was born.

So why the Trinity? The way it came to be historically is complex. I'm going to skip that. I think the best answer now is this:

So if Jesus shows us God, what kind of God does he show us? And the answer is a God who loves, and a God who is willing to join us and show us by example how to live. Furthermore, we don't think he suddenly changed in 4 BC. If God is love, and experiences personal relationships, then this is part of his nature, and was always in him, even before the creation of the world.

That implies a God who has a bit more complexity than the typical monotheistic God. In other monotheistic religions, God is the Father, the source of everything, but that's it. What the Trinity says is that there's enough of a distinction within God that he can experience personal relationship. We speak of this as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, with the Holy Spirit being in effect the bond between Father and Son (at least in Western theology).

The English term "person" can be misleading. This isn't three separate people, in the normal English sense. That's why you'll always hear Christians refer to three persons but not three people. Rather the persons are centers for personal relationship, but they are within a single God. Note that according to orthodox doctrine, God has only one will. So he's probably closer to a single human being than three human beings. But he's a single being who has enough distinction that he can experience both the creative love of the Father and the obedience of the Son.

Many Christians say that the relationship among the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is the ideal which forms a model for all human relationships. Indeed he is inviting us to join him in his love.

I wouldn't say the three persons are fractions. God isn't broken up into three pieces, as far as we can tell. Rather, he is a single being who experiences in a three-fold way.

There are actually at least two ways of understanding the Trinity, which are both accepted officially as being OK. THey tend to be associated with the East and the West. The explanation I've given you is a Western one. It starts with God as one, and talks about how we can understand some distinction within the one. The Eastern approach tends to start with the three persons and talks about how they are really one. I can't explain the Eastern approach properly, but be aware that when you talk with people about the Trinity they may not always use exactly the same explanation.

It sounds to me like you are saying "one God with different distictions". Everybody has various distinctions about them; some people see me as a coworker, others see me as an athelete, others see me as a brother, etc. even though they all call me by the same name. Is this what you mean by God? The same person with 3 different hats?

K

 

[Hakan101]

I'm not sure that's it Ken. 1 person with 3 hats is one person, God is 3 persons in 1 being.

As I have heard it explained, this is why God is self-sufficient, and all-loving. One cannot be loving without relationship. So God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are all in perfect relationship, and that's why God doesn't need us to be all-loving. Rather, we share in his abundance of love.

Then again, I wouldn't claim to have the same level of knowledge as hedrick seems to have.

 

[razeontherock]

It sounds to me like you are saying "one God with different distictions". Everybody has various distinctions about them; some people see me as a coworker, others see me as an athelete, others see me as a brother, etc. even though they all call me by the same name. Is this what you mean by God? The same person with 3 different hats?

K

Not bad. Let me point out that the early Church wrestled with all the examples readily presented within nature: egg, leaf/ root / tree, and others. And condemned them all as poor analogies. They did NOT consider man's creation in the image / likeness of God as being spirit soul and body, nor did they consider the breakdown of our soul into it's 3 components which I think is a MUCH better reflection of Trinity than anything else! I would suggest going to the Orthodox community group and respectfully asking for their explanation at least of this much: (the soul of man as being created in the image of God as Trinity I mean)

St. Justin Martyr's Corner: Debate an Orthodox Christian - Christian Forums (They also have a couple other sub-forums there, if you might feel more comfortable in one of those)

We also see our Universe is composed of time, space and matter, (as told in Genesis 1) which in itself is a trinity of trinities: time = past present future, space = 3 heavens (atmosphere, outer space and "God's realm) and matter = solid liquid gas. And yet ALL of that is still indisputably 1 Universe.

So I think our difficulties in accepting G-d's revelation, is in our reluctance to admit how HUGE He really is. I mean, infinity ...

Let me also point out G-d is revealed as a beast w/ 4 faces in Ezekiel 1, 7 Spirits of the Lord in Revelation 3, 4 and 5, which refers to OT in obscure ways, and many other things besides. Trinity is meant as a way for us to relate to Him better, not to hinder our ability to perceive Him. It is no "ultimate revelation," IMHO.

 

[elopez]

Is Jesus, God, and the Holy Spirit the same God with 3 nicknames? if so how could one be the son and the other the father?

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the same one God but three different persons. They are not nicknames they are actually names.

Are they each a fraction of a God and only when together they are a complete God? (kinda like the "egg white, yolk, and shell" explanation I've heard before

No, each person is fully the one God. Separate they are each God and together they are God. That said, the egg, yolk, and shell analogy is weak. I don't think there is a valid analogy to the Trinity as it could not be explained in such terms of human reasoning.

Or are they each 3 separate Gods? (Polytheism)
If something different please explain

No, each person is not a separate God as would imply polytheism. Again, each person is the same one God.

 

[crimsonleaf]

Not bad.

Actually Raze, it is bad. It's Modalism, a heresy.

I understand that we're all trying to explain the unexplainable, but sometimes we risk encouraging somebody in the wrong direction.

 

[hedrick]

It sounds to me like you are saying "one God with different distictions". Everybody has various distinctions about them; some people see me as a coworker, others see me as an athelete, others see me as a brother, etc. even though they all call me by the same name. Is this what you mean by God? The same person with 3 different hats?

K

Let me try to explain what worries people about this response. However I have to say in advance that since God is a more advanced kind of entity than we are, we aren't ever going to understand him accurately. So we're going to have to settle for descriptions that aren't exact.

People in the early church at times tried to speak of Father, Son and Holy Spirit as roles, rather like a person who is both a husband and a father. There are two problems with this:

1) Those roles are defined in terms of other people. But we believe that God is love in himself. He didn't need the world in order to love.

2) With human beings, roles aren't separate enough to be able to have a relationship. If my existence as a husband started loving my existence as a father, you'd probably want to call for the men in white coats.

So the conclusion was that the three persons are actual distinctions, not just different roles. On the other hand, they aren't physical separation: it's not the Father is in some parts of the universe, and the Son and Holy SPirit in other parts. However, we're really talking about something where we'll never understand exactly. So I'm not quick to reject explanations that are less than perfect, as long as you understand the reasons what the concern is.

 

[chilehed]

Our own experience is that we are one being and one person.

But a dog is one being and no person.

So you can see that not every being is always one person.

Which opens up the possibility that there can be a being which is three persons. That being is God.

This discussion by Frank Sheed is one of the best I've ever heard:
The Trinity: Three Persons in One Nature | Frank Sheed | From "Theology and Sanity" | Ignatius Insight

 

[Ken-1122]

I'm not sure that's it Ken. 1 person with 3 hats is one person, God is 3 persons in 1 being.

But a person IS a being! That's like saying I have 3 cars but only 1 automobile; it's a contradiction in terms!

As I have heard it explained, this is why God is self-sufficient, and all-loving. One cannot be loving without relationship. So God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are all in perfect relationship

But you can't have a relationship with yourself, at least one other person is required. So are there 3 or 1?

Ken

 

[Ken-1122]

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the same one God but three different persons. They are not nicknames they are actually names.

But a God IS a person! again; that's like saying I have 3 cars but only 1 automobile

No, each person is fully the one God. Separate they are each God and together they are God.

Separate by definition means more than one. You can't be one and more than one at the same time

That said, the egg, yolk, and shell analogy is weak. I don't think there is a valid analogy to the Trinity as it could not be explained in such terms of human reasoning.

Why not? the men of the Catholic church who made up the concept of the trinity obviously understood what they were talking about; why can't we? It's not like God came up with the idea or that it is in the bible or something; why could humans of yesterday understand it but not humans of today?
Ken

PS I will respond to the others later gotta go

 

[razeontherock]

It's not like God came up with the idea or that it is in the bible or something;

Um ... there are all sorts of rules against this sort of thing, not the least of which is decency ...

 

[elopez]

But a God IS a person! again; that's like saying I have 3 cars but only 1 automobile

God is each person and each person is God. The three are the same one God, just different persons. It's not like saying you have 3 cars but 1 automobile as as there would only be one automobile, not even 3 separate ones.

Separate by definition means more than one. You can't be one and more than one at the same time

Separate means there is a distinction between two or more things. There can be one God existent in three persons, the same God but distinct persons to the extent of their roles.

Why not? the men of the Catholic church who made up the concept of the trinity obviously understood what they were talking about; why can't we? It's not like God came up with the idea or that it is in the bible or something; why could humans of yesterday understand it but not humans of today?

I am not saying we cannot understand the Trinity altogether, just not in totality and surely not by analogy. God is truine in nature and acts as such, and even this is expounded in Scripture. Just because the specific word "Trinity" is not in the Bible doesn't mean the foundation to the concept isn't there as well.

 

[razeontherock]

To wit:

(Isaiah 33:22) For the LORD [is] our judge, the LORD [is] our lawgiver, the LORD [is] our king; he will save us."

Anybody seen a Judge who acts as Savior? Hellooo?

 

[Ken-1122]

So the conclusion was that the three persons are actual distinctions, not just different roles. On the other hand, they aren't physical separation: it's not the Father is in some parts of the universe, and the Son and Holy SPirit in other parts.

It sounds to me like you are contridicting yourself; first you say they are actual distinctions, then you say they aren't separate. Distinct and separate are the same thing! Like cars and automobiles.

Ken

 

[Ken-1122]

Our own experience is that we are one being and one person.

But a dog is one being and no person.

Correct; a dog is a being and a beast

So you can see that not every being is always one person.

Humm... Not every being is always A person; they may be a beast, insect, or amphibian as well.

Which opens up the possibility that there can be a being which is three persons. That being is God.

No it doesn't; you can't be one and more than one at the same time.

KEn

 

[razeontherock]

You're expecting language to clarify the ineffable?

That which is Spirit is Spirit, and that which is flesh is flesh. First you have to have the right kind of seed ...

 

[Ken-1122]

Um ... there are all sorts of rules against this sort of thing, not the least of which is decency ...

I didn't mean to offend; that was not my intention.

K

 

[razeontherock]

Good. Because G-d came up with the idea, and put it in the Bible. Some of us are just a little late getting the memo is all ...

 

[Ken-1122]

God is each person and each person is God. The three are the same one God, just different persons. It's not like saying you have 3 cars but 1 automobile as as there would only be one automobile, not even 3 separate ones.

Then you would have one person not 3 separate people

]Separate means there is a distinction between two or more things. There can be one God existent in three persons, the same God but distinct persons to the extent of their roles.[/B]

It sounds like you are saying he is one and more than one at the same time! That does not make sense!

And it also sounds like many of you guys are using the term persons to discribe more than one person. I'm not getting this; in grade school I learned that "people" was plural for "person". To use persons to discribe more than one person is akin to using gooses to discribe more than one goose. Maybe that has something to do with why what you guys are saying doesn't make any sense to me; i don't know?

K