Explaining the Trinity

[LutheranMafia]

Are you a tri-personal being? Because this is what the doctrine of the Trinity says; God is 3 persons, one being. You are not a tri-personal being though, so your analogy is going to fall short at this point.

Yes, the spirit and soul are separate personalities from the conscious mind. Just because you aren't aware of your spirit and soul doesn't mean that their personalities do not exist. It just means that you are unaware of your spirit.

Another place is that Christian theologians have asserted that God isn't composed of parts, as you seem to think you are.

Biblical support please, where does it say that God does not have parts? The Holy Spirit is referred to as the "set apart spirit of God". If He is set apart from the Holy Father, "apart" and "parts" are closely related words. I think the bible is on my side.

 

[Willtor]

Therein lies your problem. In these scriptures there is no hint of such.
If you read the rest of the Bible the way you read these scriptures you will never understand any of it.
You can't just make it say what you want it to say.

Okay.

 

[Willtor]

Yes, the spirit and soul are separate personalities from the conscious mind. Just because you aren't aware of your spirit and soul doesn't mean that their personalities do not exist. It just means that you are unaware of your spirit.


Biblical support please, where does it say that God does not have parts? The Holy Spirit is referred to as the "set apart spirit of God". If He is set apart from the Holy Father, "apart" and "parts" are closely related words. I think the bible is on my side.

I would not say that I am my body. So I have to disagree with you at least on that point. But that point isn't critical.

More important is the question of "parts." Consider that St. John says that God was the Word in the beginning. If the Word were only a "part" of God, St. John would be mistaken.

 

[Stephen Kendall]

Persecution is a serious word. It shouldn't be used lightly. It's an insult to everyone in the world and throughout history who have and do experience persecution.

-CryptoLutheran

In controlled forums like this one, to be silenced by removal of your posts isn't much of a persecution. Yet silencing the heretics of another's theology feels like persecution to those put out. Sorry for expressing my concerns and expected crushed feelings. Am I persecuting others by accusing them of their probable & possible actions? (Maybe it is better to just be silenced anyway.)

I am concerned about the adding of sequential building logics & interpretations which have created all controlling theologies into everyone's faith (the main one: Christian Trinity theology). It is a mystery enough what is written about Christ to not add to it with mind-blowing mysticism. I know what Christ & his disciples have said and understand them, except for the elements of surprises with his idenity. I understand what Christ expects of us through His Father's will without knowing all there is to his idenity. To my simple heart, I see Jesus as he says with the only mystery of his odd words like "I'ave been with you all this time and you don't know me" to be nothing more than a level of love and companionship that we should each hope to acheive (to dwell within each other's heart). It isn't mysticism, but the spiritual effects of the powerful true love of one another. I don't think that I am wrong. I don't believe there are three personalities or personifications of one God. The God of Jesus is his Father. The God of Christians should be Jesus' Father also. The wonderful Holy Spirit is our helper and friend sent by Jesus from Heaven to us. I don't understand all, but shouldn't our concern be whether we are doing the Will of God or not (listening & obeying Jesus Christ's Gospel, teachings & commands to us)?

It really isn't a strong statement to call being silenced today as persecution, unless steps are taken to really silence someone (unlikely nowadays in first world nations). Julian Assange could well be silenced by haters of the truth or keepers of secrets. Jesus teaches us many things, but not harming others. God is to be the judge, not us. We are creatures of compassion and extreme love (no room in our hearts to hate others or use any coercions against them (sword, knife, delete button?, M-16, nuke, burning sticks).

 

[Stephen Kendall]

LOL! Really? PERSECUTED you?

I have had posts removed before (vanished by a Mod Hat's delete button). I put a lot into my posts. My valuable and devoted time into these and their deletion feels like persecution. We are meant to share our lives and not to be all controlling. What we believe is very similar, say a Trinity believer and myself, only one is brave to believe uniquely and show fear of God to have caution against the heavy hand of the other's dominate theology, because it is questionable, added-in, un-needed, just an idea, warnings in scripture about changing anything and because of its history and vigor of controlling Christiandom as a whole hasn't followed the teachings & commands of Christ Jesus (persecutions against differing Christian brothers & sisters). Plain and simple. Would you cower to join the blood guilt of these thoughtless founders

It is about now that the MOD HAT cuts in and uses their delete button. I don't think that modern day Trinity believers have any of the disobedience as many of the early ones did, but I don't appreciate their heritage, confusion and un-needed coercive changes to my faith in Jesus Christ. We will know him in the end. I just hope that he will know us (be known by our love for one another). I don't need Trinity, but I love and deeply need the Way to Heaven, through God's son and my Lord Jesus Christ. I seek to obey him and no one else. Sorry to be harsh. If you wish to believe in Trinity or anyone else does, then do so without any disobedience to the teachings, commands & Gospel of Jesus Christ (his & ours Father's Will). Be known by your love or be known not at all.

Have a good day.

 

[Yekcidmij]

Yes, the spirit and soul are separate personalities from the conscious mind. Just because you aren't aware of your spirit and soul doesn't mean that their personalities do not exist. It just means that you are unaware of your spirit.

I see no reason to accept any of this.

Biblical support please, where does it say that God does not have parts? The Holy Spirit is referred to as the "set apart spirit of God". If He is set apart from the Holy Father, "apart" and "parts" are closely related words. I think the bible is on my side.

I believe I said this is something that Christian theologians have historically maintained. If you want to go against that trend, then go ahead.

 

[Stephen Kendall]

I am not a scholar or academic person. I just read and ponder the will of God. I am not worthy of anything and not that capable to present anything of real value.

I don't think that it is God's will for me to continue with discussions on the Trinity and some other subjects. We have to have His Will in us to continue in life. May God guide each of you and Christianforums. I really don't know what God wants from me and my life. I just want to be at peace with him and following his will for me (to follow Jesus Christ).

 

[LutheranMafia]

I would not say that I am my body. So I have to disagree with you at least on that point. But that point isn't critical.

Well, I am including the conscious mind with the body, so it isn't just the body.

More important is the question of "parts." Consider that St. John says that God was the Word in the beginning. If the Word were only a "part" of God, St. John would be mistaken.

The Word also comes from the Holy Spirit as well as the Son. I don't see it being limited to only one of the persons of God. I don't see how you can have separate persons without them being parts, unless you are reinventing the dictionary definition of parts or persons.

 

[Willtor]

Well, I am including the conscious mind with the body, so it isn't just the body.

The Word also comes from the Holy Spirit as well as the Son. I don't see it being limited to only one of the persons of God. I don't see how you can have separate persons without them being parts, unless you are reinventing the dictionary definition of parts or persons.

That is what I am doing, and what theologians have done, historically. The real problem, here, is that a dictionary is not a good place to go for theology -- or any scientific, technical, or philosophical field. One of the things one tends to find is that definitions frequently have to be altered to fit the realities, or simply that typical popular meanings of words don't adequately describe what they are used to describe.

 

[LutheranMafia]

That is what I am doing, and what theologians have done, historically.

Based on what? A tradition must be grounded in something.

The real problem, here, is that a dictionary is not a good place to go for theology -- or any scientific, technical, or philosophical field. One of the things one tends to find is that definitions frequently have to be altered to fit the realities, or simply that typical popular meanings of words don't adequately describe what they are used to describe.

I understand that, but a tradition must ultimately be grounded in something more than a circular reference to tradition.

 

[BrendanMark]

The Word is actually Logos in the original Greek, and applies only to the second Person (not the second part) of the Trinity. The concept of Person itself was defined with reference to the Trinity (see Gregory of Nyssa and the Concept of Divine Persons by Turcescu. No 'part' of the Father Incarnated: his only begotten Son did. The Father remained the eternal Father and the Son remained the eternal Son while both are Persons of the One Godhead along with the Holy Spirit.

The Son is the Logos of God Incarnate, as the Gospel of John so clearly states. Neither the Spirit nor the Father were Incarnate, although they remained Trinity and God. Only Jesus had Two Natures due to the Incarnation.

Maximus uses perichoresis to describe the interpenetration of essentially different natures. With the interpenetration, natures are utterly united but not altered qua natures. The wholeness of both the union and the distinction is strongly emphasized. Maximus is careful to point out that there is a peri-choresis but not a meta-choresis, that is, there is an interpenetration but not a change of one nature into the other.
Törönen, Melchisedec – Unity and Distinction in the Thought of St Maximus the Confessor [Oxford Early Christian Studies, 2007, p. 122]

Working out the union and distinction of the Persons within the wholeness of God is the essence of Trinitarian theology and Christian faith.

kai theos en o logos
and God was the Word

We know that “the Word” is the subject because it has the definite article, as we translate it accordingly: “and the Word was God.” Two questions, both of theological import, should come to mind: (1) why was [FONT=Symbol, serif]theos[/FONT] thrown forward? And (2) why does it lack the article? In brief, its emphatic position stresses its essence or quality: “What God was, the Word was” is how one translation brings out this force. Its lack of a definite article keeps us from identifying the person of the Word (Jesus Christ) with the person of “God” (the Father). That is to say, the word order tells us that Jesus Christ has all the divine attributes that the Father has; lack of the article tells us that Jesus Christ is not the Father. John’s wording here is beautifully compact! It is, in fact, one of the most elegantly terse theological statements one could ever find. As Martin Luther said, the lack of an article is against Sabellianism; the word order is against Arianism.

Jesus Christ is God and has all the attributes that the Father has. But he is not the first person of the Trinity. All this is concisely confirmed in [FONT=Symbol, serif]kai theos en o logos[/FONT].
Wallace, Daniel B. quoted from Mounce, Willam D. – Basics of Biblical Greek [Zondervan 1999, 2003 p27-28]

 

[Willtor]

Based on what? A tradition must be grounded in something.

I understand that, but a tradition must ultimately be grounded in something more than a circular reference to tradition.

Based on critical thought. When one begins to investigate a thing, one doesn't presume to know what it is already. One approaches a subject with an understanding that is ready to be altered according to the data.

 

[LutheranMafia]

Based on critical thought. When one begins to investigate a thing, one doesn't presume to know what it is already. One approaches a subject with an understanding that is ready to be altered according to the data.

It doesn't strike me as critical thought, it is being expressed as an authoritative position that has no explanation or supporting points and must be accepted on blind faith, the very antithesis of critical thought. I don't see anywhere in the Bible that this view is supported.

 

[LutheranMafia]

The Word is actually Logos in the original Greek, and applies only to the second Person (not the second part) of the Trinity. The concept of Person itself was defined with reference to the Trinity (see Gregory of Nyssa and the Concept of Divine Persons by Turcescu. No 'part' of the Father Incarnated: his only begotten Son did. The Father remained the eternal Father and the Son remained the eternal Son while both are Persons of the One Godhead along with the Holy Spirit.

The Son is the Logos of God Incarnate, as the Gospel of John so clearly states. Neither the Spirit nor the Father were Incarnate, although they remained Trinity and God. Only Jesus had Two Natures due to the Incarnation.

Maximus uses perichoresis to describe the interpenetration of essentially different natures. With the interpenetration, natures are utterly united but not altered qua natures. The wholeness of both the union and the distinction is strongly emphasized. Maximus is careful to point out that there is a peri-choresis but not a meta-choresis, that is, there is an interpenetration but not a change of one nature into the other.
Törönen, Melchisedec – Unity and Distinction in the Thought of St Maximus the Confessor [Oxford Early Christian Studies, 2007, p. 122]

Working out the union and distinction of the Persons within the wholeness of God is the essence of Trinitarian theology and Christian faith.

kai theos en o logos
and God was the Word

We know that “the Word” is the subject because it has the definite article, as we translate it accordingly: “and the Word was God.” Two questions, both of theological import, should come to mind: (1) why was [FONT=Symbol, serif]theos[/FONT] thrown forward? And (2) why does it lack the article? In brief, its emphatic position stresses its essence or quality: “What God was, the Word was” is how one translation brings out this force. Its lack of a definite article keeps us from identifying the person of the Word (Jesus Christ) with the person of “God” (the Father). That is to say, the word order tells us that Jesus Christ has all the divine attributes that the Father has; lack of the article tells us that Jesus Christ is not the Father. John’s wording here is beautifully compact! It is, in fact, one of the most elegantly terse theological statements one could ever find. As Martin Luther said, the lack of an article is against Sabellianism; the word order is against Arianism.

Jesus Christ is God and has all the attributes that the Father has. But he is not the first person of the Trinity. All this is concisely confirmed in [FONT=Symbol, serif]kai theos en o logos[/FONT].
Wallace, Daniel B. quoted from Mounce, Willam D. – Basics of Biblical Greek [Zondervan 1999, 2003 p27-28]

The fact that Jesus is God doesn't in any way support the notion that He is not a part of the Trinity. How can you assert that Christ is not part of the Trinity, the statement sound completely antithetical to Christian dogma. Who made this up, which denominations assert that Christ is not part of the Trinity?

 

[Willtor]

It doesn't strike me as critical thought, it is being expressed as an authoritative position that has no explanation or supporting points and must be accepted on blind faith, the very antithesis of critical thought. I don't see anywhere in the Bible that this view is supported.

I'm sorry it doesn't strike you that way. But the reality is that definitions are frequently changed based on the discovery of new data. This goes for all technical fields and intellectual pursuits. It isn't just theology.

 

[LutheranMafia]

I'm sorry it doesn't strike you that way. But the reality is that definitions are frequently changed based on the discovery of new data. This goes for all technical fields and intellectual pursuits. It isn't just theology.

It is not theology if it is something purely fabricated with no basis. As of yet you have offered nothing more than this. It seems there is no basis for this, it is just something the people decided to do. That is not a very convincing argument. I am left with the impression that this is a hold-over from something that was mistranslated from another language.

From my perspective it adds nothing to the understanding of the Trinity and in fact encourages an incoherent lack of comperehension of the Trinity, which is really something that is not mysterious at all, it is something very straight forward. But I think some prefer an elitist veil of confusion around theology. That is not theology, that is just egotism.

 

[Willtor]

It is not theology if it is something purely fabricated with no basis. As of yet you have offered nothing more than this. It seems there is no basis for this, it is just something the people decided to do. That is not a very convincing argument. I am left with the impression that this is a hold-over from something that was mistranslated from another language.

From my perspective it adds nothing to the understanding of the Trinity and in fact encourages an incoherent lack of comperehension of the Trinity, which is really something that is not mysterious at all, it is something very straight forward. But I think some prefer an elitist veil of confusion around theology. That is not theology, that is just egotism.

I wasn't talking about the Trinity. I was talking about word usage in technical contexts.

 

[RibI]

Explaining the Trinity

There is nothing to explain.
Boy, that was easy.

 

[Willtor]

There is nothing to explain.
Boy, that was easy.

I'm surprised to see a non-trinitarian say this.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

It's an article of faith that most people here believe in the Trinity. That God is One God in three equal, eternal, fully Divine persons- Father , Son and Holy Spirit.

But:

1) Could you begin to demonstrate that the Bible actually teaches the Trinity even though it never uses the word

2) Could you provide an Old Testament defence of this? Why is their no awareness of this idea before Christ in the Jewish community?

3) What does the Trinity say about the nature of God- what insight does it give us into God?

4) What does it mean for our Christian lives to believe in a Trinitarian God as opposed to a Monotheistic one like the Jews or Muslims believe in? How does believing in the Trinity distinguish us from Polytheists also?

5) With what simple analogies would you try and explain the Trinity to someone else?

You know, atoms are not written in the scripture, therefore they must not exist .. j/k

The insight the trinity gives to us about God is

that instead of Him being a lone lofty figure that condescends on all creation, God by nature is a community, who wants us to join in community with Him .

and without this Idea of trinity, the other religions would have no one to steal the idea of God being a relational being from.