Christian Question - Please Answer :)

[ViaCrucis]

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.

As best as I understand it the Hindu Trimurti is closer to what's known as Modalism. Modalism is the idea that God exists as a single hypostasis but expresses Himself through three "faces" (Greek prosopa). The word prosopon can mean "face", "person", or "mask"; in Greek theater when an actor changed masks, changed face as it were, they took on a new identity. In the same way Modalists believed that God was a single Hypostasis, a single "Actor" if you will, who presented Himself by changing "face", expressing Himself through different modes. Thus God the Father was the Son in the flesh, and the Holy Spirit through divine action in the world and through the Church; but the plurality is merely perceptual. We look and see three, but behind the mask, as it were, there's only the one Hypostasis, a single Person and Actor.

However in Trinitarianism that (e.g.) the Son is en pros ("was forward-facing toward") God is vital. This phrase found in John 1:1 is generally translated simply as "was with", though pros is a directional proposition, forward, forward facing. The Logos who is in the beginning with God is in the beginning face-to-face with God. Father and Son, toward one another. It is this interpersonal, interpenetrating perichoresis of the Three that is one of the essential aspects of Trinitarian theology. Perichoresis means both the distinctness and the inseparable-ness of the Three. There is always this face-to-face-ness and an inter-oneness. To know the Son is to know the Father, because the Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father; and the Spirit is in the Father and the Son, and the Father and the Son are in the Spirit.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[muichimotsu]

As best as I understand it the Hindu Trimurti is closer to what's known as Modalism. Modalism is the idea that God exists as a single hypostasis but expresses Himself through three "faces" (Greek prosopa). The word prosopon can mean "face", "person", or "mask"; in Greek theater when an actor changed masks, changed face as it were, they took on a new identity. In the same way Modalists believed that God was a single Hypostasis, a single "Actor" if you will, who presented Himself by changing "face", expressing Himself through different modes. Thus God the Father was the Son in the flesh, and the Holy Spirit through divine action in the world and through the Church; but the plurality is merely perceptual. We look and see three, but behind the mask, as it were, there's only the one Hypostasis, a single Person and Actor.

However in Trinitarianism that (e.g.) the Son is en pros ("was forward-facing toward") God is vital. This phrase found in John 1:1 is generally translated simply as "was with", though pros is a directional proposition, forward, forward facing. The Logos who is in the beginning with God is in the beginning face-to-face with God. Father and Son, toward one another. It is this interpersonal, interpenetrating perichoresis of the Three that is one of the essential aspects of Trinitarian theology. Perichoresis means both the distinctness and the inseparable-ness of the Three. There is always this face-to-face-ness and an inter-oneness. To know the Son is to know the Father, because the Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father; and the Spirit is in the Father and the Son, and the Father and the Son are in the Spirit.

-CryptoLutheran

Yeah, that just sounds like a mystical flowery way of saying that they're simultaneously separate and one, which would seem to violate a pretty basic law of logic that we wouldn't remotely allow for anything else, yet it's seemingly fine for this transcendent entity (special pleading?). If they're all in each other, then why is it a stretch to just say we don't understand it the correct way in suggesting they're separate and yet unified rather than manifestations of God in different contexts?

You admit the word translated as person for the purposes of Trinitarianism can also mean mask/persona, so why is one interpretation more valid merely because you take John as somehow the most authoritative in terms of supporting the Trinity rather than you insinuating that particular human meaning into it to reject Modalism, because then God is somehow not personal (not sure that logically follows, because God is mysterious and can communicate in mysterious ways, without being contradictory, since it's not an author of confusion)

 

[timothyu]

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.

Consider that Constantine saw himself as three entities also, emperor, son of God and Sun God.

 

[timothyu]

Each one of the "deities" before us was simply a different manifestation of God's Oneness.

Like each of the human race through which He would experience His creation from the inside and out.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Yeah, that just sounds like a mystical flowery way of saying that they're simultaneously separate and one, which would seem to violate a pretty basic law of logic that we wouldn't remotely allow for anything else, yet it's seemingly fine for this transcendent entity (special pleading?). If they're all in each other, then why is it a stretch to just say we don't understand it the correct way in suggesting they're separate and yet unified rather than manifestations of God in different contexts?

Trinitarianism is, in a sense, what we get through apophasis, negation. It is a rejection of two opposing view points: Modalism on the one hand and Arianism on the other.

Arius, for his part, saw what he was saying and doing as a pious work against the error of Modalism, which had already been nearly universally condemned in the century prior to him. So when he spoke out against his bishop for saying the Father and the Son are homoousios "of one-being" he saw himself as simply attacking Modalism. However Arius, in his zeal against Modalism fundamentally denied the integrity of the divine unity by insisting that the Son was another God. For Arius Christ was worthy of worship as God, but He was a secondary God, a created God through which the Father spoke and acted; somewhat analogous to the Platonic Demiurge; an intermediary God. The "soft" Arians, like Eusebius of Caesarea, tried to bridge the gap between the homoousios/heterousios debate by finding a compromise in saying that the Son is homoiousios--of a similar being.

But the council fathers at Nicea decided that the best way to speak was instead to assert that the Son is homoousios; and thus the Son is "God of God", "begotten not made".

The point of Trinitarianism isn't to claim that we fully understand the Divine, but rather to use our best language--no matter how impoverished it may be--to speak about God without entering into major error. We are more than willing to admit that we cannot comprehend the Divine, indeed we take the ineffability of God seriously. However we are expressly clear about what we mean when we speak of God as "one" and God as "three", we are not confusing these as though they are interchangeable. The oneness speaks of the divine integrity and unity of being; the threeness speaks of the hypostases, of the discrete actual reality of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three distinct, real, inter-personal realities.

The point, ultimately, isn't to say we understand God; but rather to say that we confess God as we believe He has made Himself present to us--through Christ, through the preaching of Christ's apostles, and the received confession and dogma inherited in this apostolic, Christian tradition.

You admit the word translated as person for the purposes of Trinitarianism can also mean mask/persona, so why is one interpretation more valid merely because you take John as somehow the most authoritative in terms of supporting the Trinity rather than you insinuating that particular human meaning into it to reject Modalism, because then God is somehow not personal (not sure that logically follows, because God is mysterious and can communicate in mysterious ways, without being contradictory, since it's not an author of confusion)

The use of prosopa/persons was, and perhaps still is, controversial. The term does get used in antiquity, but there's a reason why theologians are often more emphatic about speaking of the three Hypostases. "Person" is valid insofar as it is used to speak of the Hypostasis. And I consider that interpretation more valid because I embrace the received confession, teaching, and tradition of the holy catholic and apostolic Church--I'm a Christian.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[muichimotsu]

Consider that Constantine saw himself as three entities also, emperor, son of God and Sun God.

Except that's more persona than entity, which is how I'm a different entity than other people I associate with. I have different roles in relation to different people: I'm a brother, I'm a son, I'm a friend, etc.

 

[muichimotsu]

Trinitarianism is, in a sense, what we get through apophasis, negation. It is a rejection of two opposing view points: Modalism on the one hand and Arianism on the other.

Arius, for his part, saw what he was saying and doing as a pious work against the error of Modalism, which had already been nearly universally condemned in the century prior to him. So when he spoke out against his bishop for saying the Father and the Son are homoousios "of one-being" he saw himself as simply attacking Modalism. However Arius, in his zeal against Modalism fundamentally denied the integrity of the divine unity by insisting that the Son was another God. For Arius Christ was worthy of worship as God, but He was a secondary God, a created God through which the Father spoke and acted; somewhat analogous to the Platonic Demiurge; an intermediary God. The "soft" Arians, like Eusebius of Caesarea, tried to bridge the gap between the homoousios/heterousios debate by finding a compromise in saying that the Son is homoiousios--of a similar being.

But the council fathers at Nicea decided that the best way to speak was instead to assert that the Son is homoousios; and thus the Son is "God of God", "begotten not made".





The point of Trinitarianism isn't to claim that we fully understand the Divine, but rather to use our best language--no matter how impoverished it may be--to speak about God without entering into major error. We are more than willing to admit that we cannot comprehend the Divine, indeed we take the ineffability of God seriously. However we are expressly clear about what we mean when we speak of God as "one" and God as "three", we are not confusing these as though they are interchangeable. The oneness speaks of the divine integrity and unity of being; the threeness speaks of the hypostases, of the discrete actual reality of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three distinct, real, inter-personal realities.

The point, ultimately, isn't to say we understand God; but rather to say that we confess God as we believe He has made Himself present to us--through Christ, through the preaching of Christ's apostles, and the received confession and dogma inherited in this apostolic, Christian tradition.



The use of prosopa/persons was, and perhaps still is, controversial. The term does get used in antiquity, but there's a reason why theologians are often more emphatic about speaking of the three Hypostases. "Person" is valid insofar as it is used to speak of the Hypostasis. And I consider that interpretation more valid because I embrace the received confession, teaching, and tradition of the holy catholic and apostolic Church--I'm a Christian.

-CryptoLutheran

God of God is basically just saying he's God while also trying to say he's distinct, again violating non contradiction principle

~~~~

And this is why the mystical mysterious appeals are basically ignotum per ignotius, intellectually lazy and practically an excuse not to really think, but buy into orthodoxy instead of using critical thought

~~~

That's like trying to use a familial analogy and then suggesting I am also somehow the same as my father and mother rather than a combination of their traits and an independent entity. Son/daughter necessarily entails separateness, even if it's necessarily contingent. It's baffling that you feel the need to further rationalize the idea of this divine scapegoat rather than considering that this is fundamentally irrational in the first place: you've fully admitted you could be wrong and the same applies to your claims of Trinity, which some would argue have very little basis in the bible itself beyond particular translations and interpretations that are post hoc (and seemingly centuries after Jesus died and his message was spread)

~~~~

You can believe it, but the problem is saying it's rational when it spits in the face of reason, because you're making special pleading for this transcendent entity in regards to other things you'd apply logical absolutes to (non contradiction, excluded middle, etc).

~~~

And now it's just a matter of esoteric uses of a term, which makes the claims about being in some exclusive church that has the right interpretation even more suspect because you're not using common language, but resembling Gnostics in a surprising manner.

 

[timothyu]

Except that's more persona than entity, which is how I'm a different entity than other people I associate with. I have different roles in relation to different people: I'm a brother, I'm a son, I'm a friend, etc.

Well.. you asked why the need for them to complicate it so much so I told you.

 

[muichimotsu]

It's like the very idea Jesus could've been adopted as the Son of God is just too radical, even if there's sort of precedent for it

 

[Andrewn]

All Three individuals comprise what we consider to be God. The three parts are similar to what we call "a family."

Would speaking of God be akin to speaking of our Judiciary branch of Government? It consists of 9 separate persons and together they make up the Judiciary branch of the Government. Is this a fair comparison?

No, God is _not_ a family or a committee. That would be akin of the LDS belief.

 

[Andrewn]

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.

This kind of analogy would be akin to modalism: 3 different states.

 

[Andrewn]

Personally, I understand Trinity in a Modalist way rather than the traditional Athanasian way.

In the modalist view, do 3 manifestations exist at different times or at the same time?

 

[Andrewn]

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.

Hypostasis is not equivalent to subsistentia. Subsistentia translates Greek ousia.

 

[Andrewn]

Theologians have poetically described the Father as the "Fount of Deity".

"The phrase ‘Fount of Deity’ (often referred to by its Latin translation fons deitatis) is open to misunderstanding. It could be interpreted to mean that the other persons of the Trinity originate at a specific point in time, which is not true; or that there is subordination on the part of the Son and the Holy Spirit where there is none (except in terms of role and function)."

God the Father by R.A. Finlayson – Grace Online Library

Subordinationism - Wikipedia

Monarchianism - Wikipedia

 

[Andrewn]

Sorta like a single person with multiple personalities?

No, bec the multiple personalities would manifest at different times and that is Modalism.

 

[Andrewn]

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

We are just God's creation. We don't believe in Pantheism.

 

[Andrewn]

The use of prosopa/persons was, and perhaps still is, controversial. The term does get used in antiquity,

I think you said that 3 prosopa represent the Trinity. Then you said that 3 prosopa represent a Modalistic view .

 

[ViaCrucis]

Hypostasis is not equivalent to subsistentia. Subsistentia translates Greek ousia.

That would be substantia. Subsistentia translates hypostasis, substantia translates ousia.

"subsistence (n.)
early 15c., "existence, independence," from Late Latin subsistentia "substance, reality," in Medieval Latin also "stability," from Latin subsistens, present participle of subsistere "stand still or firm" (see subsist). Latin subsistentia is a loan-translation of Greek hypostasis "foundation, substance, real nature, subject matter; that which settles at the bottom, sediment," literally "anything set under." In the English word, meaning "act or process of support for physical life" is from 1640s." - subsistence | Origin and meaning of subsistence by Online Etymology Dictionary

"substance (n.)
c. 1300, "essential nature, real or essential part," from Old French sustance, substance "goods, possessions; nature, composition" (12c.), from Latin substantia "being, essence, material," from substans, present participle of substare "stand firm, stand or be under, be present," from sub "up to, under" (see sub-) + stare "to stand," from PIE root *sta- "to stand, make or be firm." -

Latin substantia translates Greek ousia "that which is one's own, one's substance or property; the being, essence, or nature of anything." Meaning "any kind of corporeal matter" is first attested mid-14c. Sense of "the matter of a study, discourse, etc." first recorded late 14c." - substance | Search Online Etymology Dictionary

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Ken-1122]

No, God is _not_ a family or a committee. That would be akin of the LDS belief.

No, bec the multiple personalities would manifest at different times and that is Modalism.

We are just God's creation. We don't believe in Pantheism.

So what is your view on the Trinity?

 

[Andrewn]

So what is your view on the Trinity?

Plz refer to the following thread:

Godhead vs. Trinity