my Trinity concept

[Extirpated Wildlife]

I haven't intentionally mean to place this in two forums, but after some thought, felt like it migbt ft better in here. I realize most might not like my wording of Class, but I used it due to my understanding of programming terms and because of species are done by classes. If you don't like the term class then try to look beyond that.

*********************************************************

I want to make sure I think I have this right, because it sound so much more simple than people want to make it out to be. There seems to be a fear in the reality of what the Trinity is that really doesn't have to exist.

Heritage dictionary definitions:

Essence - The inherent, unchanging nature of a thing or class of things.

Class - A set, collection, group, or configuration containing members regarded as having certain attributes or traits in common; a kind or category.



The God Class is one in essence.

The God class is made only of 3 sub-classes.

1) Father

2) Son

3) Holy Spirit

Each subclass of the super class, God, has its own behaviors and actions, but they are all equal in essence. The Father doesn't do what the Son does. The Son doesn't do what the Holy Spirit does. And the Holy Spirit doesn't do what the Father does. Also, The Father isn't the Son, the Son isn't the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit isn't the Father.

So what we have is 3 Gods, but Their essence is equal. So when saying "I believe in one God", we are saying a true statement but what is really being said is "I believe in one God class" because the reality is we have 3 Gods that are subclasses of the super class God.

What do you think?

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

I'm not sure, but I'd have to disagree with your conclusion. God also is only One Being, so there truly is only one God. Apologies if I have misunderstood your assertion.

Rob

 

[Carrye]

So what we have is 3 Gods, but Their essence is equal.

Essences can't be equal. They can be of the same kind, but there is nothing quantifiable about them that would allow one to say that essences (of any kind) can be equal.

We aren't polytheists, but monotheists.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

You are attempting to put God into logical terms...

God exists beyond space and time... and does not conform to our logical understanding.

The sooner you come to realize this the sooner you will accept God as he is and stop trying to define him.

There is one God and one God only... there are not three.

The Son and the Holy Spirit proceed from the father, equal in essance but with the father as the fount.

There is no need to explain the Trinity, just understand that it is beyond us to understand.. To us 1+1+1=1 doesn't add up, and never will.

Forgive me...

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

Yep...my first feeling upon entering the thread of "Carrye and Orthodoxyusa have posted! They'll know what is orthodox teaching and explain it well!" was right. Rob

 

[Extirpated Wildlife]

I'm not really concerned if its orthodox teaching as much as correct.

I guess I just don't get why this theory might be so way off base?

So, when the Bible says, "[Jesus] rejoiced in the Holy Spirit and said, 'I thank you, Father, ....'"(ESV Luke 10:21), that it really means "God rejoiced in Himself and said "I thank you, Me...."?

Or when Jesus says, "no one knows who the Son is except the Father"(ESV Luke 10:21) he really is saying "no one know God, except Himself"?

Or when Jesus says, "All that the Father gives me will come to me...." that it really is saying, "All that I give to Myself comes to Myself..."?

Or even in John 8 Jesus should have added, "I know I'm confusng because I am the Father and I am the Son and I am the Holy Spirit, but I am not them at the same time."

So why is my statements so off when I state the exact same thing you do? The only difference is you have decided to say that God is some sort of mystical Trinity, whereas I've stated what seems to be logical.

One God in three persons is the same as a God class with three subclasses.

It as if you see the term subclass and think I am trying to subserviant to the God class. All I am saying is that the 3 are of one essence. They don't change. Their thoughts are in 100% agreement, 100% of the time. But as three individuals persons, they have distinct roles. Yet none of them are subserviant to the other. They have taken their roles and done what the Bible teaches they do and they do not ever waver from their roles. And yet they are all God and Holy.

Jesus didn't send himself to live in us. He sent the Holy Spirit. We always talk about them as three distinct individuals, yet when we talk about the Trinity, it becomes voodoo.

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

I'm not really concerned if its orthodox teaching as much as correct.

Apologies...'orthodox' means right-thinking and is therefore synonymous with being correct.

I guess I just don't get why this theory might be so way off base?

Because you said there were three gods.

The only difference is you have decided to say that God is some sort of mystical Trinity, whereas I've stated what seems to be logical.

God cannot be fully comprehended with our logic, as I'm sure you will appreciate.

One God in three persons is the same as a God class with three subclasses.

It would seem from your explanation that you are suggesting that there are three beings that are gods, and they are united in essence. Is this what you are saying? I apologise if I have misunderstood you. If it is then it is extremely different from the orthodox concept of the Trinity.

John 1:1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Deuteronomy 6:4Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:

...For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit. But the godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, is all one, the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal.

Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.

The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. And yet they are not three eternals, but one Eternal.

As also there are not three incomprehensibles, nor three uncreated, but one Uncreated, and one Incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Spirit Almighty. And yet they are not three almighties, but one Almighty.

So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. And yet they are not three gods, but one God.

So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord. And yet not three lords, but one Lord.

For as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge each Person by Himself to be both God and Lord, so we are also forbidden by the catholic religion to say that there are three gods or three lords.

The Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone, not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Spirit is of the Father, neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding...

And in the Trinity none is before or after another; none is greater or less than another, but all three Persons are co-eternal together and co-equal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped...

Rob

 

[Extirpated Wildlife]

Apologies...'orthodox' means right-thinking and is therefore synonymous with being correct.

I didn't realize that. Thanks for the explanation. I was thinking it had to do with just traditional teachings.

Because you said there were three gods.

God cannot be fully comprehended with our logic, as I'm sure you will appreciate.

It would seem from your explanation that you are suggesting that there are three beings that are gods, and they are united in essence. Is this what you are saying? I apologise if I have misunderstood you. If it is then it is extremely different from the orthodox concept of the Trinity.

John 1:1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Deuteronomy 6:4Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:
Rob

Monotheism is the worship of one god.
Polytheism is the worship of many gods.

what defines "many gods"? Many gods would have to be defined as gods that are not equal in essence. There is something different about each god. Each god has more power in a certain area that the other gods. I've never heard of a polytheistic belief system that every god was one in essence.

Unless you know of a term to describe what I am saying, Monotheism fits what I am saying. It is the worship of one God. But God is three persons. God the Father(One God), God the Son(One God), and God the Holy Spirit(One God). They are individual Gods that their very essense is of complete unison. Nothing is different about them except their roles.

Heck, there is even still mystery in my example. Just look at what the Bible says about marraige. Two become one. You have a Husband and a wife, but they are equal. The biggest difference here is that they are not one in essence as the Godhead is. But that is God's desire for a husband and wife to act like. The ultimate perfect married couple would reflect the Godhead by acting as one united team without any wavering, though they hold different roles.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

I'm not really concerned if its orthodox teaching as much as correct.

I guess I just don't get why this theory might be so way off base?

So, when the Bible says, "[Jesus] rejoiced in the Holy Spirit and said, 'I thank you, Father, ....'"(ESV Luke 10:21), that it really means "God rejoiced in Himself and said "I thank you, Me...."?

Or when Jesus says, "no one knows who the Son is except the Father"(ESV Luke 10:21) he really is saying "no one know God, except Himself"?

Or when Jesus says, "All that the Father gives me will come to me...." that it really is saying, "All that I give to Myself comes to Myself..."?

Or even in John 8 Jesus should have added, "I know I'm confusng because I am the Father and I am the Son and I am the Holy Spirit, but I am not them at the same time."

So why is my statements so off when I state the exact same thing you do? The only difference is you have decided to say that God is some sort of mystical Trinity, whereas I've stated what seems to be logical.

One God in three persons is the same as a God class with three subclasses.

It as if you see the term subclass and think I am trying to subserviant to the God class. All I am saying is that the 3 are of one essence. They don't change. Their thoughts are in 100% agreement, 100% of the time. But as three individuals persons, they have distinct roles. Yet none of them are subserviant to the other. They have taken their roles and done what the Bible teaches they do and they do not ever waver from their roles. And yet they are all God and Holy.

Jesus didn't send himself to live in us. He sent the Holy Spirit. We always talk about them as three distinct individuals, yet when we talk about the Trinity, it becomes voodoo.

Oops.... There we go again, Attempting to put logic to God....

It never works, just proof that he's God. That he is beyond our ability to calculate.

Free your mind of limitations... do not think of God and logic or math at the same time.... Treat them as being mutually exclusive.

One thing that comes to mind is that (from the Orthodox point of view) your only using partial data... the information your calculating from is just a subset of what we know about Christianity...

The Holy Scriptures are the beginning of Christian wisdoms.. not the culmination of it...

Forgive me....

 

[Paladin_Mark]

umm intresting use of object orientation . Although i don't think its quite works. Theres only one God and He is Indescribable

 

[Paleoconservatarian]

Your ontology is smelly. You've created (dare I say "created"?) one God class, but created three objects of class God. That's polytheism, and heretical. A class in programming terms is a logical abstraction. The objects are what actually exist (the implementation). The best I could say according to your paradigm would be to say that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are members of the class, but only one object exists. In other words, you're wrong in thinking that the class is the essence, it simply dictates the attributes of the objects (essences) of type "God". But that still doesn't make all that much sense. I guess that's why God isn't a computer.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

By the way (BTW) I'm not beating up on you.... I thinks it's great that you are trying!

Forgive me....

 

[gorion]

We say, "The Trinity, One in Essence and Undivided".

Think of it this way. The Father, The Word, The Spirit. Remember the Son is the Word made flesh. The problem with the class is you have three distinct persons as three Gods being in agreement with each other.

Also Husband and wife are one flesh not just equals. So there is more to marriage than just equality.

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

I have been told many times over that the trinity cannot be understood, and all analogies are doomed to have faults.

I have what I believe is an analogy that explains the trinity with a profound simpleness, which also serves to counter all heresies, and criticisms from those who would claim we have three gods.

Imagine the human body as being divided into three portions: Body, mind and spirit.

God is Jesus, Father, and Holy Spirit, three Persons. the human body is like Jesus, our mind is like the Father, and our Spirit is like the Holy Spirit. I am not saying we are God - I say no more than is written in Genesis 1:26 'Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our iamge, according to Our likeness"' - nothing more. We do not have the essence of God within us, nor is he dependant on us. We are utterly at His mercy, and merely an image of Him. Images may be destroyed without doing any harm to that which they reflected.

I am not saying that humans *are* divided into three portions. This analogy simply serves to highlight how God can be three Persons, yet one God.

My hand is me, and my mind is me. When I die, my body will be cut off from me, yet it will be resurrected again one day, as God's body - Jesus - was also cut off from Him, yet resurrected again. Jesus is the word of God, through whom all things were created. Our body is the vessel through which we create.

I believe this answers every cavil that may be raised against the doctrine of the trinity of God. We who are made in the image of God serve as the greatest symbolic representation of what God is. God is in all ways above and beyond us - just as a mountain is in all ways above and beyond a painting of itself. Yet that painting, made in the image of the mountain, is able to convey a great deal about the nature of the mountain itself.

The Spirit of God does not point to itself, but it points to Christ and the Father (John 15:26). The Father rules the Son and the Spirit, as our own mind should rule our body and spirit (Proverbs 25:28). The Father has for a time given authority in heaven and earth to the Son, but that will be returned again to the Father.

 

[Extirpated Wildlife]

First, I want to make sure that people understand I am not trying to seek a change in belief. Personally, deep down inside I am not content with just the "Believe it this way, darn it, or we will feed you to the lions". But I am perfectly content to stay what is traditionally taught if its going to cause so much upheavel. I don't deny the Trinity. I just don't see how this theory is much different from what is traditional taught, except I'm changing the math a little bit to match what scripture seems to say. Instead of 1+1+1=1, I'm just saying 1=1 and 1=1 and 1=1.
Anyway, let me add a little more detail.

The Class God is equates to all the things that you believe God holds. He is Soveriegn, Love, Eternal, Immutable and etc., etc..

The difference in the subclasses of God (Father,Son and HS) is their roles. They all possess everything God class consists of. The Father Class didn't die on the cross. The Son Class did. The Son Class doesn't dwell within you. The Holy Spirit Class does. The HS Class doesn't draw people to Him. The Father class does.

Okay. At the very least, does anyone understand how I could come up with this theory.

 

[Paleoconservatarian]

First, I want to make sure that people understand I am not trying to seek a change in belief. Personally, deep down inside I am not content with just the "Believe it this way, darn it, or we will feed you to the lions". But I am perfectly content to stay what is traditionally taught if its going to cause so much upheavel. I don't deny the Trinity. I just don't see how this theory is much different from what is traditional taught, except I'm changing the math a little bit to match what scripture seems to say. Instead of 1+1+1=1, I'm just saying 1=1 and 1=1 and 1=1.
Anyway, let me add a little more detail.

The Class God is equates to all the things that you believe God holds. He is Soveriegn, Love, Eternal, Immutable and etc., etc..

The difference in the subclasses of God (Father,Son and HS) is their roles. They all possess everything God class consists of. The Father Class didn't die on the cross. The Son Class did. The Son Class doesn't dwell within you. The Holy Spirit Class does. The HS Class doesn't draw people to Him. The Father class does.

Okay. At the very least, does anyone understand how I could come up with this theory.

Yes, but it's still logically fallacious because that's not a trinity (think: tri-unity). Three objects conforming to one tautology is still three objects. You create three objects of the same class, and your computer will still use up the resources required for all three objects.

 

[I'ddie4him]

Yes, but it's still logically fallacious because that's not a trinity (think: tri-unity). Three objects conforming to one tautology is still three objects. You create three objects of the same class, and your computer will still use up the resources required for all three objects.

Quite true, Even tho logic says that 1+1+1=3. The trinity is 1+1+1=1
3 different entities = One God
I know the concept is hard to follow, But, I always understood this somehow.
I know this won't be much help, But, Maybe the concept can be understood with others posts in here.

 

[Extirpated Wildlife]

Let me ask this. Its stated "God in three persons".

What is a person?

 

[Quickened]

If I would be so kind as to present an illustration on the Trinity, which I have made for our viewing and understanding pleasure. http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y192/Theopneustos/Trinity.jpg

Now, what is a person? If we were to say that God was a person, then we would probably have to be more informative on what one means when we say, "God is a person." This would mean that God is personal. From Theopedia, they explain what Person means below:

Person
In regards to the Trinity, we use the term “Person” differently than we generally use it in everyday life. Therefore it is often difficult to have a concrete definition of Person as we use it in regards to the Trinity. What we do not mean by Person is an “independent individual” in the sense that both I and another human are separate, independent individuals who can exist apart from one another.

What we do mean by Person is something that regards himself as “I” and others as “You.” So the Father, for example, is a different Person from the Son because He regards the Son as a “You,” even though He regards Himself as “I.” Thus, in regards to the Trinity, we can say that “Person” means a distinct subject which regards Himself as an “I” and the other two as a “You.” These distinct subjects are not a division within the being of God, but “a form of personal existence other than a difference in being.”3

How do they relate? The relationship between essence and Person, then, is as follows. Within God's one, undivided being is an "unfolding" into three personal distinctions. These personal distinctions are modes of existence within the divine being, but are not divisions of the divine being. They are personal forms of existence other than a difference in being. The late theologian Herman Bavinck has stated something very helpful at this point: “The persons are modes of existence within the being; accordingly, the Persons differ among themselves as the one mode of existence differs from the other, and—using a common illustration—as the open palm differs from a closed fist.”4

Because each of these “forms of existence” are relational (and thus are Persons), they are each a distinct center of consciousness, with each center of consciousness regarding Himself as “I” and the others as “You.” Nonetheless, these three Persons all “consist of” the same “stuff” (that is, the same “what,” or essence). As theologian and apologist Norman Geisler has explained it, while essence is what you are, person is who you are. So God is one “what” but three “whos.”

The divine essence is thus not something that exists “above” or “separate from” the three Persons, but the divine essence is the being of the three Persons. Neither should we think of the Persons as being defined by attributes added on to the being of God. Wayne Grudem explains:

"But if each person is fully God and has all of God's being, then we also should not think that the personal distinctions are any kind of additional attributes added on to the being of God . . . Rather, each person of the Trinity has all of the attributes of God, and no one Person has any attributes that are not possessed by the others. On the other hand, we must say that the Persons are real, that they are not just different ways of looking at the one being of God...the only way it seems possible to do this is to say that the distinction between the persons is not a difference of `being' but a difference of `relationships.' This is something far removed from our human experience, where every different human `person' is a different being as well. Somehow God's being is so much greater than ours that within his one undivided being there can be an unfolding into interpersonal relationships, so that there can be three distinct persons." -Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, (InterVarsity Press and Zondervan Publishing House, 1994), pp. 253-254​

​

Source: http://www.theopedia.com/Trinity#Person



They say the word "mode" in their explanation. Please do not think that they are accepting Sabellianism (Modalism). They actually condemn that illustration if you read further below in the site.

 

[gorion]

St. Patrick used a clover. Each leaf representing one person of the trinity. But all are the clover.