Christian Question - Please Answer :)

[Strathos]

If God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit are in different places at the same time in the Gospels and yet they're all God in the sense of essence rather than accident or such, it seems like it fits into your quantum physics example, even if by that logic, it means one is reducing the supposed divine mystery of the Trinity to things comprehensible by humans and takes away some of that awe and such.

Like I said, it's just an analogy. It's not meant to be taken absolutely literally.

If God is singular, you can't have Jesus, The Father, and the Holy Spirt as God. One of the laws of logic states you can't be "A" and "-A" at the same time.
What Are the Three Laws of Logic?
IOW either you are wrong about God being singular, or the Trinity is wrong about the 3 God heads.

This is why I like to use the quantum superposition example, because quantum physics shows a lot of instances where what we know about 'logic' isn't true in some circumstances.

 

[muichimotsu]

Like I said, it's just an analogy. It's not meant to be taken absolutely literally.



This is why I like to use the quantum superposition example, because quantum physics shows a lot of instances where what we know about 'logic' isn't true in some circumstances.

Doesn't have to be taken literally to fail in terms of the comparison attempted: if God requires such comparisons, then the Trinity is hardly such a simple thing in terms of divine revelation. Then again, it brings the revelation aspect into question if this is so complicated to render

Logic is not asserted as some absolute, it merely tends to work well in terms of self correction better than mere intuition or the like.

 

[Strathos]

Doesn't have to be taken literally to fail in terms of the comparison attempted: if God requires such comparisons, then the Trinity is hardly such a simple thing in terms of divine revelation. Then again, it brings the revelation aspect into question if this is so complicated to render

Logic is not asserted as some absolute, it merely tends to work well in terms of self correction better than mere intuition or the like.

No one ever said the Trinity was simple. In fact, it's beyond our comprehension.

 

[muichimotsu]

No one ever said the Trinity was simple. In fact, it's beyond our comprehension.

Then it goes back to an initial question: why try to explain it at all? If faith is sufficient, then theology seems practically just maintaining internal adherence and not really engaging honestly with the fundamental principle the worldview is rooted in: God's supposed grace motivates, therefore freewill seems illusory as well.

 

[Strathos]

Then it goes back to an initial question: why try to explain it at all? If faith is sufficient, then theology seems practically just maintaining internal adherence and not really engaging honestly with the fundamental principle the worldview is rooted in: God's supposed grace motivates, therefore freewill seems illusory as well.

Well the OP was asking about it. I just gave one analogy that can sort of help them grasp the concept (not fully of course).

 

[Ken-1122]

Like I said, it's just an analogy. It's not meant to be taken absolutely literally.



This is why I like to use the quantum superposition example, because quantum physics shows a lot of instances where what we know about 'logic' isn't true in some circumstances.

Then explain how what we know about logic isn't true in this case. Remember the guys who invented the Trinity knew nothing about Quantum Physics, so relating to it shouldn't be necessary.

 

[Ken-1122]

No one ever said the Trinity was simple. In fact, it's beyond our comprehension.

If it wasn't beyond the comprehension of the guys who made it up, why would it be beyond ours?

 

[ViaCrucis]

So I've always been confused on the matter but never really reached out to ask and if I did, I would've still not understood it but the question is, you know how Jesus Christ talks to God, His father numerous times throughout the Holy Bible, well, is Jesus Christ talking to Himself? If Jesus Christ is God in human form and if He is talking to God, His Father, then isn't He conversing with Himself in two separate areas, one on Earth and one in Heaven? Please help me understand this.

This is really more of a theology question than an ethics/morality question.

But the answer is no, Jesus is the Son, not the Father. So when He speaks to the Father He is not speaking to Himself. They are distinct, but equally divine, persons.

Trinity - Wikipedia

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Ken-1122]

This is really more of a theology question than an ethics/morality question.
But the answer is no, Jesus is the Son, not the Father. So when He speaks to the Father He is not speaking to Himself. They are distinct, but equally divine, persons.


Trinity - Wikipedia

-CryptoLutheran

I looked up the Wikipedia definition of Trinity you provided, and it seems to contradict itself. It says;

God exists as three persons or hypostases, but is one being, having a single divine nature

In this context, person and being are the same thing.(if person and being is different in this context, please explain the difference)
So to say God is 3 persons but one being is the same as saying God is 3 persons but 1 person.

 

[JackRT]

If it wasn't beyond the comprehension of the guys who made it up, why would it be beyond ours?

You may have hit upon the solution!

 

[Ken-1122]

You may have hit upon the solution!

I don't understand. Please explain.

 

[JackRT]

I don't understand. Please explain.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia: "The formulation ‘one God in three persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formula that has first claim to the title of the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective." – (1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299.

 

[Ken-1122]

The New Catholic Encyclopedia: "The formulation ‘one God in three persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formula that has first claim to the title of the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective." – (1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299.

So why is it being taught? Or... should it be taught?

 

[JackRT]

So why is it being taught? Or... should it be taught?

Two excellent questions! Personally, I understand Trinity in a Modalist way rather than the traditional Athanasian way.

 

[Ken-1122]

Two excellent questions! Personally, I understand Trinity in a Modalist way rather than the traditional Athanasian way.

What does that mean?

 

[ViaCrucis]

I looked up the Wikipedia definition of Trinity you provided, and it seems to contradict itself. It says;

God exists as three persons or hypostases, but is one being, having a single divine nature

In this context, person and being are the same thing.(if person and being is different in this context, please explain the difference)
So to say God is 3 persons but one being is the same as saying God is 3 persons but 1 person.

The use of the word "person" isn't always helpful here, but it can be helpful in the sense that it refers to the concept of identity or "who-ness". It does have antecedent in the use of the Greek word prosopon (plural prosopa). The preferred language of the ancient fathers when talking about these things was to speak of the one ousia and the three hypostases.

The word ousia is generally translated as "being", "essence", or "substance", it stems from the Greek verb eimi, "to be", hence its translation as "being" in English. It refers to a thing's esse or "is-ness". In speaking about the Trinity this talks about what the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are, namely God. Trinitarianism goes on to say that the ousia is undivided and absolutely one. There isn't multiple instances of the divine ousia, there's only one instance of it, which is communicated freely between the Three. I want to touch on that after discussing the meaning of hypostasis.

The word hypostasis is a more difficult word, but can be understood as referring to the underlying reality of a thing; it is translated into Latin as subsistentia and thus is sometimes translated as "subsistence" in English. Here the language is about the discrete and distinct "thises", there's the Father, there's the Son, and there's the Holy Spirit; each distinct as a "this".

We use the language of prosopon or "person" because the Hypostases are personal and relational, there is act between them. And so, for example, the Father loves the Son, the Son loves the Father.

As I said, I would touch again on the communication of the divine ousia between the Three. Trinitarian theology begins by asserting the Divinity of the Father, the Father is God, the one God. It's why our Creeds begin by confessing, "We believe in one God, the Father Almighty". Theologians have poetically described the Father as the "Fount of Deity". So when we go on to speak of the Son and the Holy Spirit, we are speaking of these in relation to the Father, and when we say that the Son is God and that the Holy Spirit is God, it is because they share in the one indivisible essence of the Father. The Son is God because the Father is God; the Holy Spirit is God because the Father is God. So that the Father communicates His own essence, from all eternity, to the Son and the Spirit. This is why we speak of the eternal generation of the Son and the eternal procession of the Spirit. So that the Son has His essence from the Father as the eternally begotten of the Father, God of God; and likewise the Spirit has His essence from the Father as the eternally proceeding from the Father, and is therefore like the Father and the Son, truly God.

TL;DR version: Person and being are used to refer to entirely different concepts in Trinitarian theology; fundamentally the difference between "who" and "what".

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Ken-1122]

The use of the word "person" isn't always helpful here, but it can be helpful in the sense that it refers to the concept of identity or "who-ness". It does have antecedent in the use of the Greek word prosopon (plural prosopa). The preferred language of the ancient fathers when talking about these things was to speak of the one ousia and the three hypostases.

The word ousia is generally translated as "being", "essence", or "substance", it stems from the Greek verb eimi, "to be", hence its translation as "being" in English. It refers to a thing's esse or "is-ness". In speaking about the Trinity this talks about what the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are, namely God. Trinitarianism goes on to say that the ousia is undivided and absolutely one. There isn't multiple instances of the divine ousia, there's only one instance of it, which is communicated freely between the Three. I want to touch on that after discussing the meaning of hypostasis.

The word hypostasis is a more difficult word, but can be understood as referring to the underlying reality of a thing; it is translated into Latin as subsistentia and thus is sometimes translated as "subsistence" in English. Here the language is about the discrete and distinct "thises", there's the Father, there's the Son, and there's the Holy Spirit; each distinct as a "this".

We use the language of prosopon or "person" because the Hypostases are personal and relational, there is act between them. And so, for example, the Father loves the Son, the Son loves the Father.

As I said, I would touch again on the communication of the divine ousia between the Three. Trinitarian theology begins by asserting the Divinity of the Father, the Father is God, the one God. It's why our Creeds begin by confessing, "We believe in one God, the Father Almighty". Theologians have poetically described the Father as the "Fount of Deity". So when we go on to speak of the Son and the Holy Spirit, we are speaking of these in relation to the Father, and when we say that the Son is God and that the Holy Spirit is God, it is because they share in the one indivisible essence of the Father. The Son is God because the Father is God; the Holy Spirit is God because the Father is God. So that the Father communicates His own essence, from all eternity, to the Son and the Spirit. This is why we speak of the eternal generation of the Son and the eternal procession of the Spirit. So that the Son has His essence from the Father as the eternally begotten of the Father, God of God; and likewise the Spirit has His essence from the Father as the eternally proceeding from the Father, and is therefore like the Father and the Son, truly God.

TL;DR version: Person and being are used to refer to entirely different concepts in Trinitarian theology; fundamentally the difference between "who" and "what".

-CryptoLutheran

So getting back to the question I asked before, is God multiple? Or is he singular. Is God one being or is he multiple beings? (english terms, not greek)

 

[Strathos]

Then explain how what we know about logic isn't true in this case. Remember the guys who invented the Trinity knew nothing about Quantum Physics, so relating to it shouldn't be necessary.

If it wasn't beyond the comprehension of the guys who made it up, why would it be beyond ours?

Obviously if you believe that there is no God and everything written in the Bible was just 'made up' by some guys, then you won't care for any explanation of things like the Trinity.

 

[JackRT]

What does that mean?

In post #56 above @ViaCrucis explained the Athanasian position. It is couched in the language of Greek philosophy in which terms are defined very narrowly. I am not at all sure that such an understanding is appropriate to explain something which is transcendental to human understanding.

For many years I have struggled to understand the doctrine of the trinity. To say it is a mystery that we are not expected to comprehend simply doesn't cut it for me. Some time ago I discovered that in the original formulation of the trinity, the word in Greek which we traditionally have interpreted to mean "persons", as in "three persons in one God" is actually the same word used to designate the mask worn by actors in Greco-Roman theater. We cannot call this a "person" but we can certainly call it a "persona". This insight has put a totally new spin on the entire concept for me. We finite creatures cannot possibly hope to describe our transcendent God, but we can speak of the modes or roles or personae that assist our understanding. God as creator/father, God as spirit/sustainer, and the glimpse of God we obtain in the life and teaching of Jesus. In other words, trinity is not a description of God but is, rather, a description of the human experience of God in the language of fourth century Greek speaking Christianity. We are not limited to just these three. Any persona that promotes our understanding of and our relationship to God is completely acceptable. God could be mother as well as father. These are merely our human images of God. God is, as always, ONE.

 

[BNR32FAN]

So I've always been confused on the matter but never really reached out to ask and if I did, I would've still not understood it but
It’s a tough the question is, you know how Jesus Christ talks to God, His father numerous times throughout the Holy Bible, well, is Jesus Christ talking to Himself? If Jesus Christ is God in human form and if He is talking to God, His Father, then isn't He conversing with Himself in two separate areas, one on Earth and one in Heaven? Please help me understand this.

It’s a tough concept but the Trinity are 3 different personalities that are one God. I don’t know if you’ve ever seen Monty Python’s search for the holy grail but there’s a 3 headed giant and each head is a separate personality but all three are still one giant. I would say it’s a similar analogy.