How can God be simultaneously a Trinity of Persons, and yet one?

[The Times]

There is every reason to look deeply into the text in order to establish understanding and wisdom. Failing to look deeply into the text or by generalising it, without paying attention to symbols and the sequence in which words are used, completely misses the message altogether.

The Holy, Holy Holy message is not just giving glory and honour to Our one God, it provides descriptors that designate personalities within the Godhead.

Let us look at the versus and then we can analyse the text.

8Each of the four living creatures had six wings and was covered with eyes all around, even under its wings. Day and night they never stop saying:

“ ‘Holy, holy, holy

is the Lord God Almighty,’

who was, and is, and is to come.”

9Whenever the living creatures give glory, honor and thanks to him who sits on the throne and who lives for ever and ever, 10the twenty-four elders fall down before him who sits on the throne and worship him who lives for ever and ever. They lay their crowns before the throne and say:

11“You are worthy, our Lord and God,

to receive glory and honor and power,r

for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being.”


Glory

[1391 (dóksa) literally means "what evokes good opinion

Honour

STRONGS NT 5092: τιμή

τιμή, τιμῆς, ἡ (from τίω, to estimate, honor, perfect passive τετιμαι), from Homer down, the Sept. for עֵרֶך (a valuing, rating), כָּבוד, יְקָר, הָדָר;

It is to rank someone, through a process of evaluation.

Power

STRONGS NT 1411: δύναμις

δύναμις, δυνάμεως, ἡ; (from Homer down); the Sept. for חַיִל, גְּבוּרָה, עֹז, כֹּחַ, צָבָא (an army, a host); strength, ability, power;

The Father is Glory, he does not need to be ranked in any way, nor does he need to show his ability or strength. He is beyond testing.

The Son is ranked, he is numbered and he is counted as worthy to receive glory, the Father's Glory that is.

The Holy Spirit is the one to whom all things are performed, according to the testimony of the Father and Son, he executes what he hears and performs them without fail.

You cannot say the Father is honoured or able (power), because Glory does not need to lift a finger up, so to speak, because he is Glory.

The Son is glorified through the Father, glorify me as you are Glory Oh Father.

The Holy Spirit is the one designated to manifest the ability and power of God, through his Living Word, who is honoured to be the LOGOS (spokesman) for the Father/Glory.

The sequence of descriptors correlate to their respective meanings and functions, that is as follows....

Holy (Father), Holy (Son), Holy (Spirit)

Glory (Father), Honour (Son), Power (Spirit)

I understand why Mormons incorrectly interpret the Holy Spirit as power, without personhood, but this would be exegetically wrong and it therefore highlights why each of those descriptors, Glory, Honour, Power are actually personalities within the Godhead.

The above reply needs to be critically analysed and understood, in context to the very descriptive functions within the Godhead, sequentially owing to three personas.

 

[tampasteve]

<Staff Edit>
Unfortunately this is Partialism....each part makes the whole. Each is 100% football, but not 100% of the football. The Trinity is 100% God and 100% of God in each person.

 

[tampasteve]

<staff edit>
Totally, that is true

But He is 100% God, 100% Human, and has 100% of God. A football shell/skin is not 100% football, it is only part of the football.

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

Echad. YHVH and Yahshua have always been Echad. (Forever eternally past before all time or anything ever existed, throughout forever future immeasurably without limit)
That's not all !
Jesus prayed in the GOSPEL for all the faithful disciples to be Echad with the Father and with the Son, same as the Father and the Son are Echad !
See also in PSALMS - the Ekklesia being Echad in heart;
and a few other places "Echad" in Scripture.

Also, remember man and wife are ONE, ONE FLESH..... no longer TWO but ONE.
And even if a man takes a woman in the field , or a disciple takes a prostitute,
they become ONE FLESH ! ! !


(btw, just in case: Watch out in case someone thinks or seems to say the soul of a man existed before he was conceived --- that's a very old heresy)

Does he, I, or who mean one person is all I’m asking.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Does he, I, or who mean one person is all I’m asking.

NOPE.
(YHVH SOVEREIGN ETERNAL CREATOR SPIRIT is not human.) (i.e. NOT a person)


About 228,000 results (0.57 seconds)
Search Results
Numbers 23:19 God is not human, that he should lie, not a human ...
biblehub.com/numbers/23-19.htm
New International Version God is not human, that he should lie, not a human being, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill? New Living Translation God is not a man, so he does not lie. He is not human, so he does not change his mind. Has he ever spoken and ...

Numbers 23:19 KJV - God is not a man, that he should lie; - Bible ...
Bible Gateway passage: Numbers 23:19 - New International Version...
God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and.

Numbers 23:19,Hebrews 13:8,James 1:17 NIV - God is not human ...
Bible Gateway passage: James 1 - New International Version...
God is not human, that he should lie, not a human being, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not.

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

NOPE.
(YHVH SOVEREIGN ETERNAL CREATOR SPIRIT is not human.) (i.e. NOT a person)


About 228,000 results (0.57 seconds)
Search Results
Numbers 23:19 God is not human, that he should lie, not a human ...
biblehub.com/numbers/23-19.htm
New International Version God is not human, that he should lie, not a human being, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill? New Living Translation God is not a man, so he does not lie. He is not human, so he does not change his mind. Has he ever spoken and ...

Numbers 23:19 KJV - God is not a man, that he should lie; - Bible ...
Bible Gateway passage: Numbers 23:19 - New International Version...
God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and.

Numbers 23:19,Hebrews 13:8,James 1:17 NIV - God is not human ...
Bible Gateway passage: James 1 - New International Version...
God is not human, that he should lie, not a human being, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not.

no I don’t mean he as in a human person lol. I’m asking if the terms he, who, etc mean one single entity. Because we often see those terms associated with God. I’m asking if those terms mean singular. If I say he is there am I referring to just one entity whether it’s spiritual or just a human. How many beings am I referring to when I say “he” or “who”. I would say one tbh not sure how multiple fits there is what I’m saying.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

no I don’t mean he as in a human person lol. I’m asking if the terms he, who, etc mean one single entity. Because we often see those terms associated with God.

Echad. (worth looking up in Scripture and asking YHVH ABBA FOR HIS Understanding, since YHVH IS ECHAD, and JESUS IS ECHAD, and BELIEVERS immersed in JESUS' Name (born again) are ECHAD)

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

Echad. (worth looking up in Scripture and asking YHVH ABBA FOR HIS Understanding, since YHVH IS ECHAD, and JESUS IS ECHAD, and BELIEVERS immersed in JESUS' Name (born again) are ECHAD)

I guess my question is Is God a who or a what and if he’s a who as we seem to agree on, doesn’t the term who refer to a single entity. If I say who did this or who goes there aren’t I referring to one person?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I guess my question is Is God a who or a what and if he’s a who as we seem to agree on, doesn’t the term who refer to a single entity. If I say who did this or who goes there aren’t I referring to one person?

Why one person ? "who crucified Jesus" ? everyone. (not one person).
"Who has eternal life?" A few people, not one person.

YHVH and Yahshua (Yahweh's Salvation) are in agreement.

YHVH reveals as He Pleases through Scripture. Thus, the TRUTH.

Man keeps on messing up - coming up with many devices (errors, distractions, "instead of truth")

 

[Biblicist]

I guess my question is Is God a who or a what and if he’s a who as we seem to agree on, doesn’t the term who refer to a single entity. If I say who did this or who goes there aren’t I referring to one person?

When I first saw the title of this thread being “ . . . a Trinity of persons”, the use of the word person, which is certainly a legitimate use of the word, can still create unnecessary problems. As to our English word of person, it is not found within the Greek NT, which does not mean that even though they did not have a word for person that the concept was necessarily unknown to them.

So, when we use the word person or persons to refer to the members of the Trinity, we need to be careful that we do not overly-impose our own understanding of the word. With our understanding of the Oneness of the members of the Trinity, this Oneness exists essentially in their shared essence, where there are only three Beings/Persons who exist in this way, where all of their attributes are shared one with another, which means that they are One, yet three -- in essence.

As we are each made in the image of God, we cannot say that the Father and the Son do not exist in bodily form, but how can we describe their bodies which are undoubtedly unlike that of man. With man our bodies are separate from our soul, but this does not mean that we should say that each member of the Trinity exists as man does, where we each have a distinct human body and soul or even with what we often refer to as a ‘human spirit’.

With the use of "I" in reference to the Trinity, this would undoubtedly apply to each member, as with the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

Why one person ? "who crucified Jesus" ? everyone. (not one person).
"Who has eternal life?" A few people, not one person.

YHVH and Yahshua (Yahweh's Salvation) are in agreement.

YHVH reveals as He Pleases through Scripture. Thus, the TRUTH.

Man keeps on messing up - coming up with many devices (errors, distractions, "instead of truth")

If you see who or he why wouldn’t that refer to one person just like it does anywhere else?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

If you see who or he why wouldn’t that refer to one person just like it does anywhere else?

YHVH is NOT human, NOT like anyone else, anywhere.
(well, same as Yahshua) (except for Yahshua's physical body YHVH formed)

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

When I first saw the title of this thread being “ . . . a Trinity of persons”, the use of the word person, which is certainly a legitimate use of the word, can still create unnecessary problems. As to our English word of person, it is not found within the Greek NT, which does not mean that even though they did not have a word for person that the concept was necessarily unknown to them.

So, when we use the word person or persons to refer to the members of the Trinity, we need to be careful that we do not overly-impose our own understanding of the word. With our understanding of the Oneness of the members of the Trinity, this Oneness exists essentially in their shared essence, where there are only three Beings/Persons who exist in this way, where all of their attributes are shared one with another, which means that they are One, yet three -- in essence.

As we are each made in the image of God, we cannot say that the Father and the Son do not exist in bodily form, but how can we describe their bodies which are undoubtedly unlike that of man. With man our bodies are separate from our soul, but this does not mean that we should say that each member of the Trinity exists as man does, where we each have a distinct human body and soul or even with what we often refer to as a ‘human spirit’.

With the use of "I" in reference to the Trinity, this would undoubtedly apply to each member, as with the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Wow so the word person is nowhere in the greek didn't know that.


Honestly that was an almost perfect explanation but then I thought of the following two verses THat make your last sentence or your conclusion seem off or something (there are more like this of course but these are just 2 I thought of)





Isaiah 45:5 King James Version (KJV)
5 I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:


Comment: If I apply your framework (I agree with it at least somewhat I believe God the Father was speaking in the OT, I guess the only difference is as far as I can tell it was just him but anyway ) I find two problems here.


1. According to your framework "I" means just one member is speaking. Yet if lets say the Father is speaking here then is ...the son JESUS not Lord?

I(God the Father) am the Lord, and there is none else

2. Again you say that whenever there is the use of I (I assume you include me becuase me means the same thing I) that that means only one member is speaking.

there is no God beside me (God the Father)



Here's another one...

Isaiah 44:6 King James Version (KJV)
6 Thus saith the Lord the King of Israel, and his redeemer the Lord of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.


I (God the father) am the first, and I (God the father) am the last; and beside me (God the Father) there is no God.


There's no need to list more I think you get the point but yeah..... now viewing God as a "what" (I don't) would help which some trinitarian apologist gear that way, some even say that's the proper way to look at it.....but still doesn't help with the whole I/who/he thing I guess.

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

YHVH is NOT human, NOT like anyone else, anywhere.
(well, same as Yahshua) (except for Yahshua's physical body YHVH formed)

I agree he's not a human...but that doesn't mean grammar doesn't apply when we describe him is what i'm saying. If we read I, or he, or who in the bible it means the same thing regardless of who it's applied to. Those words all mean one entity whether it's an angel, whether it's a man, female, etc.

To put it simple...I don't see in what world would "I" or "he" be plural is what i'm saying. I'm not a grammar nut (in fact my grammar sucks) but this is just common sense stuff.

 

[The Times]

The personal pronoun "I" has a three person construct.

Shekhinah Glory does not speak and does not do.

And the Father who sent me has himself testified concerning me. You have never heard his voice nor seen his form, (John 5:37)

LOGOS The Word is the designated spokesman of the Shekhinah Glory.

The Holy Spirit executes the Words of the second witness, The LOGOS (Son to the Father's will).

Without three persons, within the I, nothing would exist. The plural construct of I in regards to persona and NOT being, must exist in order for things to come into being.

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2The same was in the beginning with God. 3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. (John 1:1-3)

The Word (The Son) was with The Shekhinah Glory (The Father) as the second witness, the spokesman (LOGOS). He too is the ONE God.

Without the spokesman nothing would be sanctioned to happen.

Sanctioning something to happen must also require the power of the Holy Spirit, to make it so within time and space. The third witness must ratify and execute what he hears as it is written....

But when He the, Spirit of truth, shall come, He will guide you into all the truth. For He will not speak from Himself, but whatever He may hear, He will speak. And He will declare to you the things coming. (John 16:13)

The "I" is therefore a construct of three distinct heavenly witnesses, who must be ONE in being, coequal and coeternal in essence/substance.

Characterizing the one God of the Holy Bible any other way is a self defeating and a self contradictory exercise indeed!

It shows how Revelation 4:8-11 Holy, Holy Holy corresponds to three persons, designated their function within the Godhead as Glory (Father), Honour (Son), Power (Holy Spirit).

For a person to be bestowed the Honour as King, in place of the King, they must be designated as the person in charge of the King's affairs, where the King places his royal signet ring on the LOGOS, his spokesman, who speaks things into being. Another person called the Viceroy is designated the function of executing the Words of the LOGOS.

The three tier function of the ONE God is a dynamic and simultaneous will in action, within the consciousness of an infinite living being, that transcends time, space, thought and anything that would try to describe him.

On one occassion Jesus tells Phillip that when he sees him, he is already in the presence of the Father. This identifies that the one being is approachable only through the LOGOS, spokesman. Though Jesus is the Son, but being wise, he is the exact image of the invisible Father.

The only way that I personal pronoun could be understood, within the I Am, is to consider God as three separate personas, yet one infinite being, the one in the same, the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last of his Kind.

You don't have three gods, but have one being, because He just is, the I Am. The different aspects of his personailities, qualify his character, his actions and his intrinsic traits. God is Love because within him exists the love between the Father and the Son. This means that all members of the trinity are coequal and coeternal, because they are the same Godbeing.

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

The personal pronoun "I" has a three person construct.

Shekhinah Glory does not speak and does not do.
LOGOS The Word is the designated spokesman of the Shekhinah Glory.
The Holy Spirit executes the Words of the second witness, The LOGOS (Son to the Father's will).

Without three persons, within the I, nothing would exist. The plural construct of I in regards to persona and NOT being, must exist in order for things to come into being.

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2The same was in the beginning with God. 3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. (John 1:1-3)

The Word (The Son) was with The Shekhinah Glory (The Father) as the second witness, the spokesman (LOGOS). He too is the ONE God.

Without the spokesman nothing would be sanctioned to happen.

Sanctioning something to happen must also require the power of the Holy Spirit, to make it so within time and space. The third witness must ratify and execute what he hears as it is written....

But when He the, Spirit of truth, shall come, He will guide you into all the truth. For He will not speak from Himself, but whatever He may hear, He will speak. And He will declare to you the things coming. (John 16:13)

The "I" is therefore a construct of three distinct heavenly witnesses, who must be ONE in being, coequal and coeternal in essence/substance.

Characterizing the one God of the Holy Bible any other way is a self defeating and a self contradictory exercise indeed!

why not just put We instead of I or even "us" if this logic actually applies?

 

[Biblicist]

Wow so the word person is nowhere in the greek didn't know that.

This was something that I only came to realise a few years back when I was reading some technical commentary on the Trinity. As it came of a bit of a surprise to me I went and checked my Concordances and Lexicons which confirmed what I had read.

Honestly that was an almost perfect explanation but then I thought of the following two verses THat make your last sentence or your conclusion seem off or something (there are more like this of course but these are just 2 I thought of)


Isaiah 45:5 King James Version (KJV)
5 I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:


Comment: If I apply your framework (I agree with it at least somewhat I believe God the Father was speaking in the OT, I guess the only difference is as far as I can tell it was just him but anyway ) I find two problems here.


1. According to your framework "I" means just one member is speaking. Yet if lets say the Father is speaking here then is ...the son JESUS not Lord?

I(God the Father) am the Lord, and there is none else

2. Again you say that whenever there is the use of I (I assume you include me becuase me means the same thing I) that that means only one member is speaking.

there is no God beside me (God the Father)



Here's another one...

Isaiah 44:6 King James Version (KJV)
6 Thus saith the Lord the King of Israel, and his redeemer the Lord of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.


I (God the father) am the first, and I (God the father) am the last; and beside me (God the Father) there is no God.


There's no need to list more I think you get the point but yeah..... now viewing God as a "what" (I don't) would help which some trinitarian apologist gear that way, some even say that's the proper way to look at it.....but still doesn't help with the whole I/who/he thing I guess.

The use of personal pronouns such as I, me, we and us etc are certainly found within both the Old and New Testaments but we do not find a direct equivalent to our English person or persons. Unlike that of a pronoun such as I, me, we and us, our English word person or persons contains a wide range of meanings and unless we are aware of that when we come across this word in our English translations then we can easily read more into the Greek word than the original author would have desired.

As for Isa 44:6, where my knowledge of Hebrew is woeful or virtually non existent, I had to jump over to the Greek Septuagint where they have included two uses of the Greek word ego (our English 'I') in this passage. My Holladay entry gives this word as וְ particle conjunction אֲנִי pronoun independent 1st person common singular. As both uses of the word in this passage are "independent 1st person common singular" then it would be speaking of God as the Father of Israel and not as a member of the Trinity.

But my main point is not so much with the use of pronouns but with how our English translations insert the word person or persons, which is something that we always need to be aware of when discussing or studying the Trinity.

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

The personal pronoun "I" has a three person construct.

Shekhinah Glory does not speak and does not do.
LOGOS The Word is the designated spokesman of the Shekhinah Glory.
The Holy Spirit executes the Words of the second witness, The LOGOS (Son to the Father's will).

Without three persons, within the I, nothing would exist. The plural construct of I in regards to persona and NOT being, must exist in order for things to come into being.

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2The same was in the beginning with God. 3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. (John 1:1-3)

The Word (The Son) was with The Shekhinah Glory (The Father) as the second witness, the spokesman (LOGOS). He too is the ONE God.

Without the spokesman nothing would be sanctioned to happen.

Sanctioning something to happen must also require the power of the Holy Spirit, to make it so within time and space. The third witness must ratify and execute what he hears as it is written....

But when He the, Spirit of truth, shall come, He will guide you into all the truth. For He will not speak from Himself, but whatever He may hear, He will speak. And He will declare to you the things coming. (John 16:13)

The "I" is therefore a construct of three distinct heavenly witnesses, who must be ONE in being, coequal and coeternal in essence/substance.

Characterizing the one God of the Holy Bible any other way is a self defeating and a self contradictory exercise indeed!

Lastly though JESUS sems to do the same thing he speaks of what he hears... so i'm confused by what you're saying with john 16:13. If you're saying like there's a unity I guess this verse goes with that.

John 8:26 King James Version (KJV)
26 I have many things to say and to judge of you: but he that sent me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I have heard of him.

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

This was something that I only came to realise a few years back when I was reading some technical commentary on the Trinity. As it came of a bit of a surprise to me I went and checked my Concordances and Lexicons which confirmed what I had read.


The use of personal pronouns such as I, me, we and us etc are certainly found within both the Old and New Testaments but we do not find a direct equivalent to our English person or persons. Unlike that of a pronoun such as I, me, we and us, our English word person or persons contains a wide range of meanings and unless we are aware of that when we come across this word in our English translations then we can easily read more into the Greek word than the original author would have desired.

As for Isa 44:6, where my knowledge of Hebrew is woeful or virtually non existent, I had to jump over to the Greek Septuagint where they have included two uses of the Greek word ego (our English 'I') in this passage. My Holladay entry gives this word as וְ particle conjunction אֲנִי pronoun independent 1st person common singular. As both uses of the word in this passage are "independent 1st person common singular" then it would be speaking of God as the Father of Israel and not as a member of the Trinity.

But my main point is not so much with the use of pronouns but with how our English translations insert the word person or persons, which is something that we always need to be aware of when discussing or studying the Trinity.

but I guess then my question becomes why would he say he's the only God though if the goal is to let Israeli understand who God is if lets say it has nothing to do with the trinity. And God the Father here is speaking in reference to being the Father of Israel.


If they are only told he's God and he's Lord and no one else how would that help in regards to understanding the trinity? Wouldn't they assume it's God the father and that's it?

 

[The Times]

why not just put We instead of I or even "us" if this logic actually applies?

Because God is the same being, the I Am. When the sentence relates to relationship within the Godhead, Jesus uses the WE, like so.....

Jesus replied, "Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them. (John 14:23)