Holy Trinity Explanations

[Hoghead1]

Well, big deal, so what, Cappa? All the major scholars I know are perfectly happy with them. If you are unhappy with them, then that's your problem. Of course, many have objected to Descartes. But that does not detract from the fact he is a giant in substance philosophy. In fact, one of teh reasons he is attacked is because of the questionable nature of his substance metaphysics. The truth of teh matter is that a major riff does exist between substance metaphysics and process metaphysics. The fact you don't recognize that tells me right there that you are unfamiliar with both approaches.

 

[Cappadocious]

Well, big deal, so what, Cappa? All the major scholars I know are perfectly happy with them. If you are unhappy with them, then that's your problem. Of course, many have objected to Descartes. But that does not detract from the fact he is a giant in substance philosophy. In fact, one of teh reasons he is attacked is because of the questionable nature of his substance metaphysics. The truth of teh matter is that a major riff does exist between substance metaphysics and process metaphysics. The fact you don't recognize that tells me right there that you are unfamiliar with both approaches.

So we've finally reached the point where you're relying on assertions alone, instead of assertions and bad reasoning.

Now that we're here, I'd like to let you know something:

If you go to a different thread on this site and try to talk down to people, obscurely pontificating from your enlightened viewpoint, waving a degree around and all that jazz... just know, I'll be there. And I'll stop that snark in the same manner I did in this thread.

 

[Hoghead1]

I am truly trembling in my boots. And I'll be around to point you y definitely do not have any real grasp of this subject at all.

 

[mark46]

It amusing that we just the notes by the translators of the New Infallible Version instead of the Tradition of the faith that dates back to Syriac manuscripts.

http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/m-m.html

http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/1john5n7.html

 

[All4Christ]

It amusing that we just the notes by the translators of the New Infallible Version instead of the Tradition of the faith that dates back to Syriac manuscripts.

http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/m-m.html

http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/1john5n7.html

Lol, it took me a second to catch the (N)ew (I)nfallible (V)ersion reference. It's been awhile since I've read the NIV.

 

[Revealing Times]

I would like to discuss the various explanations Christians have towards the Trinity and how to effectively explain it to the unbeliever.

God gave me this a few years ago. It is not as complex as most make it out to be. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one in Essence, which means what they stand for, or what they are about. But they are three unique individuals in their office, or what their mission is.

All three have equal make-ups in who they are, all three are Love, Hope, Joy, Peace, Long-suffering, Honest, Trustworthy, Caring, etc. etc. they are exactly the same in their essence or make-up. All three are different in their missions or offices. God the Father has the abundance of the Glory, no man can look upon Him, the Holy Spirit can live in us, if God lived in us in His fullness, we would be consumed by His Glory, Jesus walked the earth, so he doesn't have the fullness of Gods glory either, but he is God in essence, just not the fullness of God the Father.

Here's an example God gave me. Take a Three Trillion Gallon reservoir of water, it has the exact same make-up throughout, it has the exact same chemical make-up in all three trillion gallons of water, the essence of every gallon is the same. Now Pour 100 (Jesus) gallons over your head, you will be soaking wet, but OK. Now pour another 100 (Holy Spirit) gallons over your head, again you will be soaked but OK no doubt. Now take the Full Three Trillion (God the Father) Gallons of water and pour it over your head and you will surely drown NO DOUBT, in other words, the Fullness of the Glory lies with God the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are exactly the same in what they stand for, but not exactly the same in the ABUNDANCE OF GLORY.

Three in one, all three the same but different.

 

[FireDragon76]

The best way to understand the Trinity is to understand the conciliar dogmas of the early Church.

 

[Geralt]

to an unbeliever ? you can explain it, but it will never be understood. it is not science, and God is not a lab rat. what we know about God is only what He has revealed of Himself to us within the limitations of our human nature and means of communication. it is therefore a mystery at its truest nature, and thus will require faith.​

I would like to discuss the various explanations Christians have towards the Trinity and how to effectively explain it to the unbeliever.

 

[Hieronymus]

The best way to understand the Trinity is to understand the conciliar dogmas of the early Church.

Yet that is also interpretation of Scripture, isn't it?

 

[FireDragon76]

Yet that is also interpretation of Scripture, isn't it?

Both Arius' followers and the Trinitarians used the Scriptures to defend their beliefs. The debate came down to which theology was more consistent with the tradition that had been received, including the Scriptures.

 

[Hieronymus]

Both Arius and the Trinitarians used the Scriptures to defend their beliefs.

From what i understand, the Jews acknowledged the plurality of YHWH Elohim (Elohim being plural) too, but they have dismissed it after Christ because it such a Christian idea since then.
I mean, it's not just the New Testament that teaches YHWH as a plural One.
There are actually more than 3 persons identifiable, because there is also Melchizedek, the Angel of YHWH and the Name to whom God's exclusive attributes are ascribed.

 

[All4Christ]

From what i understand, the Jews acknowledged the plurality of YHWH Elohim (Elohim being plural) too, but they have dismissed it after Christ because it such a Christian idea since then.
I mean, it's not just the New Testament that teaches YHWH as a plural One.
There are actually more than 3 persons identifiable, because there is also Melchizedek, the Angel of YHWH and the Name to whom God's exclusive attributes are ascribed.

Not keeping the early traditions of church including the councils (especially in regards to the Trinity, Christology, and the foundations of our faith) is one of the easiest ways to introduce unorthodox theology.

Anyone can believe what they want, but if they want to keep orthodox Christian beliefs, those councils in particular are very important. Case in point, many unorthodox beliefs on the Trinity, including believing in more than three persons, can be supported to various degrees from scripture.

Using councils to clarify the faith and orthodox theology is supported in scripture when the Council of Acts was held to determine orthodox theology in regards to Gentile requirements of the faith.

 

[Hieronymus]

Not keeping the early traditions of church including the councils (especially in regards to the Trinity, Christology, and the foundations of our faith) is one of the easiest ways to introduce unorthodox theology.

I prefer to stick with Scripture, which pre-dates 'orthodoxy' and on which orthodoxy is supposed to be based.
Not saying orthodoxy is wrong or anything though, but it's Scripture that has doctrinal authority, not their interpreters.
If (not saying there is in this case) there's a mistake in interpretation and it is adopted early on, it will be considered orthodox too, but it would still be a mistake.
Meanwhile Scripture still says the same as it did then, and through investigating the texts in their original languages, as is still done nowadays, probably more than ever before (more people doing it and better access to it), it is Scripture that speaks rather than old interpretations.
Again, none the less, old interpretations are often correct.
But Melchizedek seems to remain somewhat of a mystery.
But i have no problem with that.
I can accept God is unfathomable, but i'm reluctant to strictly number YHWH Elohim to be 3 persons / identities (in One).
I (tend to) believe He is 3 in 1 though, just not convinced we should make it infallible doctrine.

 

[All4Christ]

I prefer to stick with Scripture, which pre-dates 'orthodoxy' and on which orthodoxy is supposed to be based.
Not saying orthodoxy is wrong or anything though, but it's Scripture that has doctrinal authority, not their interpreters.
If (not saying there is in this case) there's a mistake in interpretation and it is adopted early on, it will be considered orthodox too, but it would still be a mistake.
Meanwhile Scripture still says the same as it did then, and through investigating the texts in their original languages, as is still done nowadays, probably more than ever before, it is Scripture that speaks rather than old interpretations.
Again, none the less, old interpretations are often correct.
But Melchizedek seems to remain somewhat of a mystery.
But i have no problem with that.
I can accept God is unfathomable, but i'm reluctant to strictly number YHWH Elohim to be 3 persons / identities (in One).
I tend to believe He is 3 in 1 though, just not convinced we should make it infallible doctrine.

I understand where you are coming from - I used to think the same thing, though I did believe in the traditional view of the Trinity.

That said what do you make out of the council in Acts? Was it possible that they made a mistake in their decision, since it was a council of men? Or since it is recorded in Acts, does that validate that particular council in your view, while not indicating the path for Christians to follow in the future?

 

[Hieronymus]

In understand where you are coming from - I used to think the same thing, though I did believe in the traditional view of the Trinity.

That said what do you make out of the council in Acts? Was it possible that they made a mistake in their decision, since it was a council of men? Or since it is recorded in Acts, does that validate that particular council in your view, while not indicating the path for Christians to follow in the future?

I'll have to look into Acts for that, but indeed, since it is Scripture, i consider it to be authoritative, but your question then would probably be: "Where would you draw the line?"
And to be honest, it's also because of possible information overload (which already is a problem for me) i choose to stick with Scripture.

 

[FireDragon76]

Jews don't have a problem with the Trinity because of the Threeness, but because they don't accept Christ as the Messiah.

 

[alexandriaisburning]

I prefer to stick with Scripture, which pre-dates 'orthodoxy' and on which orthodoxy is supposed to be based.

"Orthodoxy" is not an interpretation of Scripture; it is the fundamental tradition of the church of which the Scriptures are themselves a part. Orthodoxy is certainly informed intimately by the Scriptures, but it is not simply an interpretation of the same.

Not saying orthodoxy is wrong or anything though, but it's Scripture that has doctrinal authority, not their interpreters.

Saying that "orthodoxy" is wrong is to also say that the Scriptures are wrong. Since the proper interpretation of Scripture must be rooted in the orthodox teaching of the historical church, a denial of orthodoxy would, by its very nature, be a denial of the Scriptures as well.

And if you divorce the Scriptures from the tradition upon which they are built, you make the Scriptures themselves a self-referential authority for interpretation, which opens the floodgates for any possible interpretation to be made, by anyone, without the possibility of refutation beyond the domain of rhetorical flair, personal gravitas, or others factors of the same ilk. The point is that ultimately the authority for interpretation will be reduced to the subjectivity of the individual interpreter, which is one of the reasons why we see such breathtaking things being said on these forums.

Meanwhile Scripture still says the same as it did then, and through investigating the texts in their original languages, as is still done nowadays, probably more than ever before (more people doing it and better access to it), it is Scripture that speaks rather than old interpretations.

If the authority of an interpretation of Scripture is not based on anything other than the self-referential, there is no basis upon which to validate that any particular interpretation is more or less valid than any other. We do not approach the Scriptures in the vaccuum, and the truths within Scripture do not exist objectively apart from the texts. Therefore, every act of interpretation is based on some external authority being applied to it.

This is why, as was already mentioned, that the very "biblical" interpretations of the Arians were rejected. It was not *simply* because their hermeneutics were bad, or because they didn't use academically sound interpretive methods; no, the most significant problem for Athanasius and other defenders of orthodox belief is that the interpretations did not align with the tradition that undergirded their understanding of Scripture. By divorcing itself from the historical witness, the Arian interpretation had no authority to which to appeal, regardless of how sound the actual textual interpretation might have been.

Again, none the less, old interpretations are often correct.

Age of the interpretation has nothing to do with it; the criteria is whether the interpretation aligns with the tradition of the apostles that is encapsulated within the tenets of orthodoxy.

 

[Hieronymus]

"Orthodoxy" is not an interpretation of Scripture; it is the fundamental tradition of the church of which the Scriptures are themselves a part.

Not in this discussion i.m.o.