Is Trinity logical or not?

[Godistruth1]

Can we comprehend the understanding of trinity through logic or faith alone?

 

[Gell]

Frank Turek has a very good analogy on this.
He explains that we can never fully comprehend the nature of God but we can apprehend Him.
Like the ocean, you know it's there and it's vast but we can never fully know what is going on in its depths.

 

[Barney2.0]

That depends, the nature of God isn’t supposed to be completely logical. However logically God’s nature should transcend logic. We can have a basic understanding of the Trinity, not a complex understanding though.

 

[Dave-W]

Can we comprehend the understanding of trinity through logic or faith alone?

Neither. It must come from supernatural revelation.

 

[Norbert L]

It took quite a lot of time before the prevailing conclusion of mankind was that the shape of the surface of the Earth was a sphere rather than flat.

 

[bcbsr]

Can we comprehend the understanding of trinity through logic or faith alone?

I don't find it difficult to understand. Consider the analogy of the Sun. When you look at the Sun, you're not looking at the sun, you're looking at the light that comes from the sun. It says

John 14:8,9
Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us."
Jesus answered: "Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father‘?

Just as we call the light that comes from the sun, "the sun", so we call Jesus "God".

Heb 1:3 The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.

The sun is a ball in space 93 million miles away. But the light that comes from the sun travels that distance to earth. If you want to travel to sun you can't travel at night. You have to follow the light. The heat from the sun is invisible but can be experienced even in darkness. That's likened to the Holy Spirit. So you have the analogy of the trinity.

In astrophysics a star is not simply defined by the ball in space but also by its radiation. All together make up the star. So also with God.

 

[Godistruth1]

That depends, the nature of God isn’t supposed to be completely logical. However logically God’s nature should transcend logic. We can have a basic understanding of the Trinity, not a complex answer though.

Well who said its not supposed to be completely logical. God who gave us logic would not want us to use it to know him? What for did God give us logic?

 

[Ken Rank]

Can we comprehend the understanding of trinity through logic or faith alone?

Yeshua said two things that deal directly with this.

John 16:25 "These things I have spoken to you in abstract language; but the time is coming when I will no longer speak to you in abstract language, but I will tell you plainly about the Father.

Luke 10:22 All things have been delivered to Me by My Father, and no one knows who the Son is except the Father, and who the Father is except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him."

These two verses together have always spoken to me that first, Yeshua spoke in proverbs and parables EVEN CONCERNING the Father. And then in Luke, we see that it is Yeshua who has to "reveal" the Father to us. So the answer to your question is "No" on us being able to use logic to fully understand the Godhead, and "Yes" that through faith (i.e. hearing the Word of God - Rom. 10:17) we can understand it but only when it is revealed to us.

 

[Barney2.0]

Well who said its not supposed to be completely logical. God who gave us logic would not want us to use it to know him? The. What for did God give us logic?

God gave us logic so we don’t become uncivilized barbarians, he didn’t give us logic to know his personal nature.

 

[Tom 1]

Can we comprehend the understanding of trinity through logic or faith alone?

The idea of what the doctrine of the Trinity represents is just one of a whole lot of things nobody really comprehends about God. Reading the book of Job, as just one example, convinced me of that. Fundamental to being a Christian in my view is entering into a relationship with God on the understanding that he is God, and we aren’t. His ways are not our ways, his thoughts not our thoughts. Walking with Jesus is a process of learning about him that never ends.

 

[Uber Genius]

Can we comprehend the understanding of trinity through logic or faith alone?

Incoherent question! Faith is not a way of knowing anything!

Faith is trusting something for which there is sufficient evidence to trust!

One trusts one’s parents due to thousands of experiences that a parent is trustworthy.


Muhammad thought the trinity was God the Father, consorting with Mary (Joseph’s wife) to produce an offspring Jesus.

Now whether Mohamed had a corrupted version of the Bible, or more likely a mythological retelling of same is unclear but his concept of the trinity is incoherent.

We are uni-personal beings as are all spiritual beings except God who is eternally tri-personal. No logical unsoundness here.

 

[Uncle Mikey]

Can we comprehend the understanding of trinity through logic or faith alone?

Hi Godistruth1.

I believe the answer is both depending on the individual.

Those that wish for a more 'logical' explanation may find what they are seeking in this verse...

Romans 1:20
"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse"

I equate the Trinity with the word Godhead.

I believe the above verse is teaching us that everything is made of the Godhead, or what we call Atoms.

There is much more to this of course.

 

[cvanwey]

Neither. It must come from supernatural revelation.

But if a Muslim (the original poster) claims 'supernatural revelation', and a Christian (you) claims 'supernatural revelation', you cannot both be right? Can you? So how might one proceed moving forward?

 

[cvanwey]

Incoherent question! Faith is not a way of knowing anything!

Faith is trusting something for which there is sufficient evidence to trust!

One trusts one’s parents due to thousands of experiences that a parent is trustworthy.

Agree and disagree. Yes, I agree one must first establish their specific 'flavor', for the definition of 'faith'. But it becomes easy to provide false analogies

'blind faith' - Belief w/o true understanding, or, belief w/o first receiving acknowledgment of actual existence to such said 'belief'.

'faith' - Could be cross referenced with both 'belief' and/or 'trust', (like you state), as the person imposing such 'faith' applies continued belief or trust of this 'known' and 'verified' human or material item.

So yes, in your example, 'faith' would be a logical word to use, to also associate with continued belief or trust in your parent's future actions, based upon their past actions, past known characteristics, and the fact that we have sufficient knowledge of existence to the millions of other parents living today, etc...

So yes, you can also use 'faith' 'correctly', as a 'reliable' mechanism in trusting your brakes will not fail at the next stop light. Why? Because you 'know' the breaks exist. You know the past characteristics of those brakes. You know when they were serviced last. etc...

Where religion is concerned, now there becomes the question of 'faith' (vs) 'blind faith'.

Can one really fairly and properly associate a human based or material based analogy (like the two above), as it relates to 'faith', the same way one then associates for their asserted god? The reason I ask, is because the OPer is a Muslim, and you are a Christian. You both impose/assert 'faith' in your differing gods.

Just curious how this works for religion?

 

[cvanwey]

I don't find it difficult to understand. Consider the analogy of the Sun. When you look at the Sun, you're not looking at the sun, you're looking at the light that comes from the sun. It says

John 14:8,9
Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us."
Jesus answered: "Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father‘?

Just as we call the light that comes from the sun, "the sun", so we call Jesus "God".

Heb 1:3 The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.

The sun is a ball in space 93 million miles away. But the light that comes from the sun travels that distance to earth. If you want to travel to sun you can't travel at night. You have to follow the light. The heat from the sun is invisible but can be experienced even in darkness. That's likened to the Holy Spirit. So you have the analogy of the trinity.

In astrophysics a star is not simply defined by the ball in space but also by its radiation. All together make up the star. So also with God.

In all honesty, couldn't the very same assertions and conclusions be made for Brahma?

 

[cvanwey]

Yeshua said two things that deal directly with this.

John 16:25 "These things I have spoken to you in abstract language; but the time is coming when I will no longer speak to you in abstract language, but I will tell you plainly about the Father.

Luke 10:22 All things have been delivered to Me by My Father, and no one knows who the Son is except the Father, and who the Father is except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him."

These two verses together have always spoken to me that first, Yeshua spoke in proverbs and parables EVEN CONCERNING the Father. And then in Luke, we see that it is Yeshua who has to "reveal" the Father to us. So the answer to your question is "No" on us being able to use logic to fully understand the Godhead, and "Yes" that through faith (i.e. hearing the Word of God - Rom. 10:17) we can understand it but only when it is revealed to us.

FYI... You are using the verses from the very book the original poster is questioning. So let's turn it around, so you may understand how your method of response yields insufficiency.

'From the Holy Qur'an, Muhammad states, and I quote....'

You see how you will immediately dismiss such an assertion as a lie, or glaze over, or even ignore or chuckle, when it comes from a claimed source in which you do not believe actually exists postmortem?

The original poster most likely concludes that Jesus is not the son of God. So to use quotes, from the very book which assert that He is, is irrelevant - (just like him quoting Qur'an passages to you, as 'proof' would be).

 

[Godistruth1]

But if a Muslim (the original poster) claims 'supernatural revelation', and a Christian (you) claims 'supernatural revelation', you cannot both be right? Can you? So how might one proceed moving forward?

True. Either one supernatural revelation is true or neither is!

 

[Godistruth1]

Hi Godistruth1.

I believe the answer is both depending on the individual.

Those that wish for a more 'logical' explanation may find what they are seeking in this verse...

Romans 1:20
"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse"

I equate the Trinity with the word Godhead.

I believe the above verse is teaching us that everything is made of the Godhead, or what we call Atoms.

There is much more to this of course.

So you believe three gods make one God. What about a million gods equal to one God. Does that make good sense?

 

[bcbsr]

In all honesty, couldn't the very same assertions and conclusions be made for Brahma?

Kind of off topic. The issue is one of comprehending the concept of the Trinity. Don't know who "Brahma" is and don't care.

 

[cvanwey]

Kind of off topic. The issue is one of comprehending the concept of the Trinity. Don't know who "Brahma" is and don't care.

Please allow me to demonstrate why my response becomes rather relevant... You stated:

I don't find it difficult to understand. Consider the analogy of the Sun. When you look at the Sun, you're not looking at the sun, you're looking at the light that comes from the sun.

Okay, how does this begin to tie to your believed God specifically, and how might this tie directly to Yahweh/Jesus/Holy Ghost?

Just as we call the light that comes from the sun, "the sun", so we call Jesus "God".

Okay, again, how does this begin to tie to your believed God specifically, and how might this tie directly to Yahweh/Jesus/Holy Ghost?

The sun is a ball in space 93 million miles away. But the light that comes from the sun travels that distance to earth. If you want to travel to sun you can't travel at night. You have to follow the light.

Okay, yet again, how does this begin to tie to your believed God specifically, and how might this tie directly to Yahweh/Jesus/Holy Ghost?

On an additional side note, you do understand the earth orbits the sun, not the other way around, right? So this portion of your analogy appears misleading, for more than one specific reason.

The heat from the sun is invisible but can be experienced even in darkness. That's likened to the Holy Spirit. So you have the analogy of the trinity.

Don't see the attempted adjoining connection here?

In astrophysics a star is not simply defined by the ball in space but also by its radiation. All together make up the star. So also with God.

This analogy no more associates a connection to your specific believed God, than it does for the believed Hindu God Brahma.

Also, you forgot to use the 'father analogy.' You could be a father, brother, son, friend, nephew, uncle, and cousin; all at the same time.

You also forgot to use the 'science analogy' as well. Water can be a liquid, solid, or a gas.

But guess what, so could Brahma, a 'true' stated God of Hinduism; asserted by millions, and believed to exist wholeheartedly by millions.

Here's a thought... Instead of using erroneous analogies, which no further point to Yahweh specifically, then they could instead point to any opposing asserted God, maybe address this more specific and relevant observation, regarding the concept of a trinity - (not to be provided for mockery or disrespect, but instead a serious situation):

(Jesus) 'Mom, if I'm supposed to be God, who am I praying to?'
(Mary) 'I stopped asking those kinds of questions when I realized that You're technically the one whom impregnated me.'

Now we have a more viable situation/topic to discuss (for or against)