Trinitarian question

[IgnatiusOfAntioch]

As most people in this forum accept the Nicene Creed, I suppose there are quite a few trinitarians here. Some of you believe in three seperate dieties in one form, or one diety with three bodies, or just one diety who only exists in one place at a time, but has gone through three stages (i.e. before Christ came to earth, he was the Father, then was born on earth as the son... at which time there was no God in heaven... then God died as the Son, and is now the holy spirit).

(Amended response)
No, you have several false and erroneous notions of this concept. This well known type of erroneous statement is described as the "Strawman fallacy". It is most frequently used by people who are too lazy to do the proper scholarship necessary to find the true facts. You can find out more about it by doing a search for 'strawman fallacy'.

 

[Tinker Grey]

As the OP is not presenting an argument, he cannot be committing a straw man fallacy.

To be guilty of using a straw man fallacy, one needs to be building a false image of the opposing viewpoint for the sole purpose of tearing it down.

Since the OP has not presented an argument nor torn down his perception of what others believe, the OP cannot be guilty of a straw man fallacy.

The OP can be guilty of misrepresenting a position, but it seems to be the OP's intention to ask the participants for a clearer perspective.

AFAIK, that is exactly what threads are for ... discussion.

Anticipating that someone might want to tear down a position is not conducive to mutual understanding.

To help under stand the Straw Man fallacy, here are two sites:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

 

[The Gregorian]

Really, there is only one Trinitarian theology. All the rest are not Trinitarian.

I'll keep that in mind.

Trinitarian theology is that there are three Persons who are all one essence. The Father, who is eternal and uncaused, eternally begets the Son, who is therefore eternal and of the same essence as the Father. The Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father, and is therefore eternal and of the same essence as the Father (and also of the Son). Sort of like a Thought speaking a Word on the power of a Breath.

So, in your opinion, are they each just body parts to one creature made of the three put together? You said one is the thought, one is the word, and one is the breath... does that just mean the holy spirit isn't a conscious person itself, but just an active force/a breath/an action that the combined "God" person takes?

If they are just pieces of a whole, doesn't that mean they would be incomplete without each other? While Jesus (1/3 of God) was dead, by your definition of the trinity state that for three days, god was incomplete or less?

(note, I'm NOT trying to disprove anyone's version of the trinity, I've just noticed that some people define the trinity as one person taking three roles, meaning while Jesus was dead, there was no God... while others say that Jesus wasn't a part of the trinity until after he was ressurected, meaning God was complete even while Jesus was dead. So, I'm trying to understand each definition completely)

The Father, Son, and Spirit are all unique Persons. However, they are all one and the same Divinity/Substance/Essence. Three Persons, One Divinity.

"one and the same Divinity/Substance/Essence." is pretty abstract... could you define the difference between substance and essence so I can understand your point of view? To me both mean form/physical make up... i.e. someone of the same substance means they are physically inseparable. Contrastingly, it could just mean two seperate physical bodies of the same make up... i.e. of the same species, so to speak. Phrases like "Eternally one in divinity" are very poetic... but all four words are used contrary to their normal usages, and therefore I would appreciate such things to be defined so I can understand your point of view.

That is the only Trinitarianism. All other theologies are something else. If someone believes in three dieties, then that person is a Tritheist. If someone believes that God is one being who manifests himself in three different ways at different times, then that person is a modalist (God has three modes of existing). There are not multiple ways to be a Trinitarianist. Either you are or you aren't.

I've heard the exact same thing from the other points of view, lol... which is why I'm trying to intelligently understand each point of view so I can discuss it knowledgeably... without abstract concepts.

 

[The Gregorian]

Trinity is a term that is used to attempt to describe the triune God, the fact that there are 3 coexistent, co-eternal persons that make up God. Understand that this is NOT in any way suggesting 3 Gods. The Trinity is 1 God made up of 3 persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, which are of one essence and undivided.

That's why I'm looking for an explanation... if they "co-exist" there's multiple... One thing can't co-exist with itself... it just exists... And "Co-eternal"... what do you mean by that?

Such terms are used VERY differently by different people. You say it's 3 persons... but undivided.... If it's undivided... that's 1 person... not 3. In what way are they "three" (therefore seperate?) ... or... in what way are they one and therefore not three? I could better understand "one yet not one, three yet not three" thing if someone could give the definition of what ways they're one and not one, and in what ways are they three and not three...?

Of course... no "it's a divine mystery" stuff... I'd like to keep that phrase out of bounds. If you're going to say "This definition is correct, and all other definitions are heresy"... I'd really like a definition that isn't heresy.

No, you have several false and erroneous notions of this concept. This well known type of erroneous statement is described as the "Strawman fallacy".

Nope... none of them are strawmen... they're actual definitions of the trinity I've heard before. The one you took most issue with is the idea that there is one God who was YHWH, then came to earth and became Jesus (God manifest in the flesh), then died and re-became God... thus explaining when Jesus said "The Father is Greater than I" in that in the form of man he was temporarily less than what he was in the form of God. They even go so far as to say that Jesus couldn't just be part of God... but that Jesus must have been all that was God to die for our sins in order for his sacrifice to mean anything. They say that ANYTHING other than the "complete Father" coming to earth to be reborn into the Son, and dying for us would be insufficient to pay for our sins... and they claimed that to be true trinitarian doctrine.

Which is why I'm trying to actually understand each theory claimed to be "the only true definition of the trinity" so that every version isn't considered a strawman by subscribers of every other version.

 

[The Gregorian]

I believe we are made in the image of God. Three in one. I am my body, I am my soul and I am my spirit. The three are one. BUT the difference between us and God (and this is where the analogy breaks down) is that God, as Father, Son and Holy Spirit each is God in his own right, without anything subtracted from His Being.

The Trinity is something that is too Godlike for us to totally grasp with our finite minds. That's why faith is involved, not just intellectual understanding. I'm looking forward to being able to understand more clearly when I get to be with Him in Heaven!

So, is your body, soul, and spirit three persons of you? Do you consider one aspect of the three to be less or greater than the others? Can your soul know things your spirit doesn't? And what is the difference between your soul and spirit? lol. Back to the illustration you used to describe God... I understand that there are things we don't understand... but what leads you to believe that the Father is fully God with or without the Son... who is fully God with or without the Father... How do believe there are three persons who are independently "fully God" ... yet there aren't three Gods? I'm sorry... I just don't like when conversations go to: "My understanding is correct, and all other understandings are heresy, but it's impossible for anyone to understand my understanding with a finite mind like mine." See the irony there?

As negative as that sounds, I'd like to end on a positive note: how you ended "That's why faith is involved, not just intellectual understanding. I'm looking forward to being able to understand more clearly when I get to be with Him in Heaven!" I REALLY agree with that. I don't expect this conversation/thread to end with any one (including myself) to be "Right" or "Wrong" .... but I HOPE to illustrate that there are a LOT of people who are honestly trying to understand God's message to them... I really don't think any of us will have it perfect... hopefully we can help each other understand a little better, of course, but we must ALL understand that our understandings aren't infallible, and even if we luck out and our guess happens to be 100% correct, it's not for any of us to tell the others how they sin by understanding differently. In short, we should all appreciate when people try and we have opportunities to learn from or teach each other. But, we must all still realize our understandings are nothing more than our best guesses at a puzzle none of us will see solved until we confront our maker, however that happens.

 

[The Gregorian]

Tell me how it is that in this room there are three candles and but one light, and I will explain to you the mode of the divine existence.

Well, in that example, I can actually explain how three candles can appear as one light... If I do, will you actually keep to your end? Because I will.

As for tinker grey: Thank you very much for sticking up for me here. I promise I will do my best not to argue my point, but for this thread I am honestly JUST trying to understand whatever theories on the subject as completely as I can. ... Yes... later on... in OTHER threads, I will be using said understandings as I see fit. Unless someone changes my mind, I will likely go to a section where debate is accepted and point out why these theories tend to directly disagree with each other. ... but that's for another thread and I'll try to honor that.

In case there are a few people who haven't guessed it: My definition of God's relationship with Jesus is much simpler. 1 corinthians directly says "There is for us only one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we are for him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we have our being through him." therefore I believe there is one God, the Father. I believe Jesus is his heavenly son, who is our lord and messiah, and the greatest servant to his God and Father. However, in John 20:17 Jesus says "[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]I go up to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God."[/FONT] therefore I believe that the Father is Jesus' Father and Jesus' God... That Jesus is the head of the congregation worshiping God, but still in the same congregation worshiping my God and his God.

That's where I'm coming from... and an example of a decently clear explanation of my beliefs (always willing to answer questions if anything's unclear, but I don't think this is the place). Hopefully with this example in mind, someone can give a similar example of their beliefs including a couple biblical references and your interpretations of said scriptures and why it leads you to understand what you do.

(keep in mind the bolded irony above.)

 

[R3quiem]

You're Roman Catholic...?

Not really; more of an agnostic/christian seeker. I was born into Catholicism and go to Catholic Mass on Sundays.

 

[PaladinValer]

Not really; more of an agnostic/christian seeker. I was born into Catholicism and go to Catholic Mass on Sundays.

I believe their point is, do you think it is fair of you to use an icon here that represents a church, denomination, or religion that you are not compliant with?

Is it honest of you?

 

[Elife3]

The Trinity is one God in three persons. The opposite view of 3 gods in 1 is tritheism which is a pagan concept.

 

[The Gregorian]

k... kinda slowing down... Elife.... you said 1 god in three persons.... how do you define "persons?" Do they have individual minds/bodies? Or is it just 3 personas/attitudes/roles? "1 god in three persons" is inherently illogical, so can you explain in what ways "they" are one vs. in what ways they are three? Beyond the "divine mystery mere mortals aren't supposed to understand?"

Is each one independantly God? Or are they only thirds of God... without one, are they incomplete? Or are they just as complete without one or the other? When Jesus was dead, was there a God? Was there less of a God? Or was God the same whether Jesus was dead or not? And if God was equally God with or without Jesus... how do you see Jesus fitting in there?

When Jesus came to earth, did he quit being God... or was he still "fully" God? If he was fully God... and he was killed... are the other thirds equally mortal? i.e. is God capable of dying? If God is incapable of dying, how did Jesus die?

Each of these questions are important, so please respond to each. I've heard opposing answers to all of them... so I want to ask them all at once so one person can't say two contrary things and confuse me.

 

[JonF]

As most people in this forum accept the Nicene Creed, I suppose there are quite a few trinitarians here. Some of you believe in three seperate dieties in one form, or one diety with three bodies, or just one diety who only exists in one place at a time, but has gone through three stages (i.e. before Christ came to earth, he was the Father, then was born on earth as the son... at which time there was no God in heaven... then God died as the Son, and is now the holy spirit).

Which flavor of trinitarianism do you subscribe to

none of the above

and why?

because they are unbiblical

Also, does it bother anyone that most flavors of the trinity teach polytheism whereas the bible specifically states "There is for us only one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we are for him" then follows up to specify that Jesus is "Lord" rather than "God?"

I believe in one God existing simultaneously in 3 distinct personages, I can give you a multitudes of verses in the bible that blatantly state Jesus is God.

 

[NorrinRadd]

Hi, "Gregorian."

The doctrines of the "Trinity" (one God, eternally revealed in three distinct persons) and the "Incarnation" (Jesus Christ, fully God and fully human) are two of the central doctrines of Christianity, and they are two of the most difficult. Honestly, they are not really penetrable or comprehensible on strictly logical terms.

The glib explanation of the Trinity is "God is one in nature/essence, three in person," or "God is one 'what,' but three 'who.'" As you said, that is hardly logical. Wesley's example of a room with three candles but only one "light" is simple and rather elegant, but falls a bit short in that candles are not persons who interact with each other -- Jesus praying to the Father, the Father speaking from Heaven at the baptism of Jesus, etc. But the truth is, logical or not, Scripture teaches that there is only one God, that the Father is God, Jesus is God, the Spirit is God; and all three are distinct, as opposed to one God wearing different masks.

If you feel like going through some Scripture, you can read this page I put online a while ago. It won't help you with the "logic," but I think it will do a decent job of showing that the New Testament does indeed teach that God is one God revealed as three persons.

 

[Oblio]

When Jesus came to earth, did he quit being God...

Jesus didn't 'come' to earth, He was Incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man. That being said, and clarified, He was fully God and fully man at His conception and for ever more.

or was he still "fully" God?

Is is always fully God.

If he was fully God... and he was killed... are the other thirds equally mortal?

There are no 'other thirds', to divide God into thirds is heresy.

i.e. is God capable of dying?

When He is homousios with man He is. That is a key element in the Incarnation and our Salvation.

If God is incapable of dying, how did Jesus die?

N/A see above.

 

[The Gregorian]

none of the above
because they are unbiblical

Not looking for anything negative in this thread... don't want it to be considered a debate and get shut down. Don't want to hear anything about what is false... only what each person thinks is true... if you disagree with someone, say what you DO believe instead... not how they're wrong. Thanks.

I believe in one God existing simultaneously in 3 distinct personages, I can give you a multitudes of verses in the bible that blatantly state Jesus is God.

Can you define what a "personage" is? The dictionary defines it as a "character" ... so it's one being who plays three characters? Or how do you define a personage? And those verses would be helpful.

 

[JonF]

Not looking for anything negative in this thread... don't want it to be considered a debate and get shut down. Don't want to hear anything about what is false... only what each person thinks is true... if you disagree with someone, say what you DO believe instead... not how they're wrong. Thanks.

Uh, it’s been a long standing policy that if a topic is aloud to be posted in GT it is allowed to be debated. But, since it’s your op I will comply with your request .

Can you define what a "personage" is? The dictionary defines it as a "character" ... so it's one being who plays three characters? Or how do you define a personage? And those verses would be helpful.

You are equivocating the word “character”. In this sense it doesn’t mean “character” as in actor playing a part. Your example is called modalism and is actually a formal heresy. Also your description of personage ignores my word “distinct”. By personage I meant a: rational, reasoning, self-conscience, knowing, feeling, self-aware, moral agent.

 

[IgnatiusOfAntioch]

As the OP is not presenting an argument, he cannot be committing a straw man fallacy.

Incorrect. Below is the OP original Satement which constitutes the Strawman Fallacy Statement. Please not that it was quoted in both of the two previous posts as well.

Some of you believe in three seperate dieties in one form, or one diety with three bodies, or just one diety who only exists in one place at a time, but has gone through three stages (i.e. before Christ came to earth, he was the Father, then was born on earth as the son... at which time there was no God in heaven... then God died as the Son, and is now the holy spirit).

So, This in fact is the well known type of erroneous statement is described as the "Strawman fallacy". It is most frequently used by people who are too lazy to do the proper scholarship necessary to find the true facts. The statement above by the OP is the consumate example of the 'strawman fallacy'.


Grace and peace.

 

[The Gregorian]

Jesus didn't 'come' to earth, He was Incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man. That being said, and clarified, He was fully God and fully man at His conception and for ever more.

k... if you're certain that it's heresy to claim that Jesus is anything other than fully God while being fully man... Can you explain what that means? If he's fully both things, both must be the same. You can't be fully one thing and fully something else... Unless you can give an example of something that can be fully two different things?

[/quote]Is is always fully God.
There are no 'other thirds', to divide God into thirds is heresy.[/quote]
OK... so while Jesus was "fully God" on earth... there were no two other thirds in heaven? Because it's heresy to seperate God into thirds... was Jesus all that God is... i.e. when Jesus was dead... was there no living God for three days?

Uh, it’s been a long standing policy that if a topic is aloud to be posted in GT it is allowed to be debated. But, since it’s your op I will comply with your request .

Read the sticky: "The Nicene Theology forums are for discussion of orthodox Christian theology, as defined by the Nicene Creed. Topics which are ruled upon by the Creed (ie., the Trinitarian nature of God) are not up for discussion. While everyone is welcome to participate, and questions are fine, all debates should come from a Nicene perspective. There is to be no promotion of non-Nicene doctrines."
Of course I'm up for debate... but aparently, in this area, anything decided by the nicene crede (specifically the trinity) are not up for discussion.

I'm perfectly happy debating anyone anywhere... but this is a good opportunity for me to keep my trap shut as far as what I think and just ask for clarification.

You are equivocating the word “character”. In this sense it doesn’t mean “character” as in actor playing a part. Your example is called modalism and is actually a formal heresy. Also your description of personage ignores my word “distinct”. By personage I meant a: rational, reasoning, self-conscience, knowing, feeling, self-aware, moral agent.

YAY! I greatly appreciate you defining a term... that's VERY hard to get someone to do when talking about the trinity. lol!

OK... progress... so you're saying The Father and Son are of one essence (do you mean one body, or just made of the same type of essence... i.e. am I of one essence with my family members? Or are they of one essence as in sharing one body)? But, you're saying they have individual minds? i.e. one can know things the other can't? (Such as where it talks about the day and the hour of God "no one knows, not even the Son, but only the Father?")

So... are they only triune physically? Or, are they three personalities, that share one 'soul' so to speak... for lack of a better illustraion: like a person with multiple personality disorder? If they are distinct personages... i.e. if they have three individual minds... how are they triune?

When I see 'the father and I are one' right next to 'just as we all are one' I get more that they are one as a married couple... not actually one being... but they are unified... they're a team. I use marriage as an example because the bible uses the exact same phrase to explain how the Father and Son are "one" as it does explaining how a husband and wife are "one".... So, are they one as a team? or in what way are "they" one?

 

[The Gregorian]

So, This in fact is the well known type of erroneous statement is described as the "Strawman fallacy". It is most frequently used by people who are too lazy to do the proper scholarship necessary to find the true facts. The statement above by the OP is the consumate example of the 'strawman fallacy'.

eherm... If you look... I wasn't saying people believe in all of those... I'm saying many of you believe in this, or that, or that... etc.

The first one was "three separate dieties in one form" i.e. three persons, each being fully God... in one form/essence.

Is that not what many people are telling me right now... three persons (Each fully God)/one essence?

therefore, not only is it not a strawman (a statement overly simplified for the purpose of attacking/disproving)... it's not wrong. Nor am I attacking or making any attempt to disprove it. I'm not even rebutting it. I'm saying "I've heard quite a few explanations of the trinity... and people usually say that all other concepts of the trinity are heresy."

For example... in this thread... I've been told

"Scripture teaches that there is only one God, that the Father is God, Jesus is God, the Spirit is God; and all three are distinct, as opposed to one God wearing different masks."-NorrinRadd

"The Father, Son, and Spirit are all unique Persons."-MrSnow

"to divide God into thirds is heresy."-Oblio

"God, as Father, Son and Holy Spirit each is God in his own right"-BrBob

"Three distinct Persons equally and eternally of the same One Unique Substance."-PaladinValer

"3 gods in 1 is tritheism which is a pagan concept."-Elife3

So... are they all unique persons, each God in their own respect... but equal? Or are they three gods in one? Or is that a pegan concept? Are they all unique persons? or is it heresy to separate them?

I was told by one person, that Jesus was "fully God" even while on earth... So, what did he mean when he said "The Father is greater than I."...? That question is usually what gets people saying "He was God, then became human, the other persons of God be greater than that one." Yet, oblio would say that's heresy.

Trust me... I'm not even beginning to question or debate the theory... I'm simply questing for an explanation of it so that in the future, I'll know what the other viewpoint is. At that point it'll be a debate... and a fun one... now, I'm doing nothing but trying to understand... Therefore it's a "question" not a "strawman."

Now... if you'd like to contribute to the conversation... good. If you'd like to clarify something... I'd like that. But I'd appreciate it if you didn't jump into conversations in order to end them because you don't agree with the ability of your viewpoint to be explained, let alone questioned.

 

[GeratTzedek]

Some of you believe in three seperate dieties in one form, or one diety with three bodies, or just one diety who only exists in one place at a time, but has gone through three stages (i.e. before Christ came to earth, he was the Father, then was born on earth as the son... at which time there was no God in heaven... then God died as the Son, and is now the holy spirit).

None of these is Trinitarian theology. They are all considered heresies.

In Trinitarian theology there is ONLY ONE GOD, not three gods, not three deities. This one God is three persons. Not three forms. Not three occasions or stages. These three persons are all the ONE GOD, but are not each other, for example, G-d the Son is not G-d the Father, never has been, never will be.

This is the ONLY "flavor" which can be said to be Trinitarianism. Modalism, Arianism, and all the rest, as I said, are heresies.

All modals, analogies, and metaphors ultimately fall short. However, I will offer the best I have ever come across, and it is that of three dimensional space. Space is space. We experience space as a unified kind of thing; it is simply there. (Two dimensional and one dimensional sorts of ideas exist only as abstractions -- they are not real.) Yet Space consists of three dimensions: length, width and height. Each dimension is unique and not to be confused with the other two -- length is not width or height, etc. Each dimension IS Space--length fully occupies space, yes? Take away any ONE dimension, and space ceases to exist. Take away, i.e., length, and you no longer have space. You don't have, for example, 2/3 of space left. Or space in a different form left. It is NOT SPACE. There are three dimensions, or there is no space at all.

 

[Oblio]

If he's fully both things, both must be the same. You can't be fully one thing and fully something else... Unless you can give an example of something that can be fully two different things?

You have missed the point of the Incarnation. That is exactly what it means, that two different things mystically came together and were united without mixture or confusion. Jesus is 100% God, Jesus is 100% man. It is this fact that allows us to be saved.