Christian Question - Please Answer :)

[timothyu]

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

And theology is nothing but religious philosophy. Man's truth, not God's. The opposite to what Jesus said the foundation his church would be built upon.

 

[timothyu]

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

Tradition

 

[timothyu]

he 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".

Where being refers to what-ness.

 

[BNR32FAN]

The Trinity is confusing. But there is one analogy that I find can be helpful.

If you are familiar with quantum physics, it states that individual particles can be in a state of superposition, where they literally exist in more than 1 state at the same time (whether it be position, time, orientation, etc.) You may have heard of Schrodinger's Cat, which is a thought experiment extrapolating this principle to the macro scale, in which it's posited that a cat can be both dead and alive simultaneously.

Now I'm not saying that the Trinity means that God is literally in a state of quantum superposition, but it's an interesting way to think about it, as it's a principle in science that explains how one thing can be different and yet the same.

Typically I just use the 3 headed giant from Monty Python analogy. Lol they were three different personalities but still one giant.

 

[timothyu]

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)

Is a divine power outside the realm of our comprehension singular? I would say yes (like another life form). Can it be an assembly of portions? Yes.

Too take it a step further, If God is all and created all of us then each of us are a part of God, a product of that assembly, an extension but not gods ourselves except in our own realm of comprehension. We however are creating Artificial Intelligence and to it we are unexplainable creators that gave another life form understanding of self. It knows it is but not why.

 

[Ken-1122]

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.

If I didn't care for your explanation of the Trinity, I wouldn't be asking all of these questions.

 

[Ken-1122]

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.

Sorta like a single person with multiple personalities?

 

[BNR32FAN]

Sorta like a single person with multiple personalities?

I don’t really know much about that. I’ve never met someone like that.

 

[timothyu]

Sorta like a single person with multiple personalities?

Do those multiple personalities each have their own agenda or follow the will of one?

 

[Ken-1122]

Is a divine power outside the realm of our comprehension singular? I would say yes (like another life form). Can it be an assembly of portions? Yes.

A divine power does not need to be outside the realm of our comprehension to be singular.

Too take it a step further, If God is all and created all of us then each of us are a part of God, a product of that assembly, an extension but not gods ourselves except in our own realm of comprehension. We however are creating Artificial Intelligence and to it we are unexplainable creators that gave another life form understanding of self. It knows it is but not why.

Are each of us an actual part of God? Or are we just his creation.

 

[Ken-1122]

I don’t really know much about that. I’ve never met someone like that.

And I've never met a 3 headed Giant. We don't need to meet something in order to understand it.

 

[Ken-1122]

Do those multiple personalities each have their own agenda or follow the will of one?

Depending on the person. For some people they follow their own agenda, for others they follow the will of one.

 

[Ken-1122]

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.

Perhaps when the Bible was translated from Greek to English, the term "person" should not have been used to describe God, another word should have been used, because person has a specific meaning in the English language that is obviously different than what was meant to describe God; do you agree?

 

[timothyu]

A divine power does not need to be outside the realm of our comprehension to be singular.

How so?

For some people they follow their own agenda, for others they follow the will of one.

Well in the case of 'God", they follow only one

Are each of us an actual part of God? Or are we just his creation.

If God is all then we are a part of the all. Just not a properly functioning part. That is what God wants us to change so that He may work through us in this realm... as intended. He is sitting at the keyboard so to speak but we keep writing our own programs that block His good intentions.

 

[Ken-1122]

How so?

A single divine power is singular regardless of whether we understand it or not.

Well in the case of 'God", they follow only one

Thank-you for answering my question. That analogy is much easier to understand than trying to understand greek or other languages and terms.

 

[JackRT]

Perhaps when the Bible was translated from Greek to English, the term "person" should not have been used to describe God, another word should have been used, because person has a specific meaning in the English language that is obviously different than what was meant to describe God; do you agree?

I do.

 

[ViaCrucis]

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)

If you are using "being" as a simple alternative to the word "someone" or "person"--and thus as an approximate for what Christians mean when we speak of hypostasis--then multiple, specifically three. But that simply isn't how we traditionally speak, since we take the traditional meaning of "being" as referring to the existence, substance, essence, a thing's "is-ness".

Bob is a human being because Bob's being is human, Bob exists as a human. Bob is also a person, he's Bob. Bob has a friend named Mike, Mike is also a human being, because Mike has existence as a human; and Mike is also a person, he's Mike. Bob and Mike are two humans beings AND two persons. They are each two instances of the same kind of being, human; and they are also two distinct and separate persons.

I have a rock, the rock has being, it exists as a rock. But my rock isn't a person, it's just a rock.

So Bob is a single being and a single person.
And my rock is a being but isn't a person at all.

Now let's go back to the Trinity, we're saying three persons, one being. The Three share in the single, one, undivided being which is common to all three. That is, the Father communicates what He is to the Son and the Holy Spirit; so the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is also God. Thus the one being of God. The Father is God, He exists in His being as God; the Son is God, He exists in His being as God; the Holy Spirit is God, He exists in His being as God. One Being, three Persons.

I brought up the historic language because it is important to understand not only what we're saying, but why we're saying it.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Ken-1122]

If you are using "being" as a simple alternative to the word "someone" or "person"--and thus as an approximate for what Christians mean when we speak of hypostasis--then multiple, specifically three. But that simply isn't how we traditionally speak, since we take the traditional meaning of "being" as referring to the existence, substance, essence, a thing's "is-ness".

Bob is a human being because Bob's being is human, Bob exists as a human. Bob is also a person, he's Bob. Bob has a friend named Mike, Mike is also a human being, because Mike has existence as a human; and Mike is also a person, he's Mike. Bob and Mike are two humans beings AND two persons. They are each two instances of the same kind of being, human; and they are also two distinct and separate persons.

I have a rock, the rock has being, it exists as a rock. But my rock isn't a person, it's just a rock.

So Bob is a single being and a single person.
And my rock is a being but isn't a person at all.

Now let's go back to the Trinity, we're saying three persons, one being. The Three share in the single, one, undivided being which is common to all three. That is, the Father communicates what He is to the Son and the Holy Spirit; so the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is also God. Thus the one being of God. The Father is God, He exists in His being as God; the Son is God, He exists in His being as God; the Holy Spirit is God, He exists in His being as God. One Being, three Persons.

I brought up the historic language because it is important to understand not only what we're saying, but why we're saying it.

-CryptoLutheran

In your scenario, Mike and Bob are both human beings who share the same being type; that which is human.
Then you say The Father, Son and Holy Spirit share the same being type; that which is God.
If the Father, Son and HS sharing the same being type makes them one God being, how come Mike and Bob who share the same being type doesn’t make them one human being?

 

[muichimotsu]

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

Seems suspiciously like Trimurti Hindu theology, a monistic theology that nonetheless allows for manifestations of the singular deity without contradicting its unity regardless. And that, interestingly enough, far predates Christianity in its existence.

Not sure why, beyond cultural context, why early Christians felt the need to try and complicate it so much to avoid accusations of polytheism, but maybe they didn't really understand that Trimurti structure that well to begin with either.

 

[JackRT]

I posted this some years back:

Some years ago I visited a Hindu temple. I stood before the altar area staring in silent amazement at the multitude of images of various deities, some of them very bizarre indeed. I had been there several minutes when I heard a gentle voice behind me say "God is One." I turned to meet the pundit (priest) of the temple. As he escorted me around the altar area he explained that while God is One, we in our finitude are unable to comprehend the fullness of God in a single "take". Each one of the "deities" before us was simply a different manifestation of God's Oneness. We Christians have done much the same with our trinity theory. Interestingly enough, the pundit was also a nuclear chemistry professor at a nearby university.

Did the pundit express Trimurti Hindu theology?