Please explain the Trinity

razeontherock said:

Oy. Have you read the Gospel of John? (John 1:1) "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

(John 1:14) "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us"

You've never seen that before? Really? There ya go.

Click to expand...

ElijahW said:

How would you know that there are plenty of people that understand it today?

Click to expand...

ElijahW said:

Plato is the philosopher who popularized the understanding of the universe that the early Christians are working with, when talking about the Trinity. You need to understand platonic dualism and Plato's understanding of God along with it's relation to creation, in order to understand philosophical context the Church fathers are working with.

Click to expand...

sk8Joyful said:

Originally Posted by sk8Joyful

All three are the same Being, but in 3 different Representations.
Why?
(because as mortals most souls forget, GOD usually is without a physical body);
so because they CANT relate to Him, GOD Presents
Himself to us in 3 different forms, we CAN relate to:
1. water - God

2. Solid/ice -> Jesus

3. steam -> Holy Ghost

​

Well, this explanation has been used for MANY other children, &
Scientific-minded adults before, & they all managed to understand it just fine. - Sad, you don't.

Click to expand...

ElijahW said:

Surely there is but if you don't understand it then how are you able to determine if it's plenty of people or few of them?

No it's my position that "few" do. If another person comes into this discussion that has a decent understanding of platonic philosophy I will be presently surprised but that doesn't mean there isn't anyone out there who doesn't understand it rationally.

Click to expand...

sk8Joyful said:

Evidently you still don't get it.


HALLO
Did you even bother Checking the Scriptures I posted with my previous response?;
(or are you only arguing, for argument's sake < I don't have time for that nonsense!)

JOHN 1:1-18 specifically -
JOHN 1:1
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the WORD WAS GOD."
and
JOHN 1:4
The Word gave life to everything that was created, and his life was THE LIGHT to all humanity.
and
JOHN 1:14
The Word became FLESH and made his dwelling among us.
____________________
I NEVER said anything about 'seperate' bodies of water, or seperate gods, or polytheism.

I said: God wants us to be able to Enjoy a Close-relationship with HIM (one God).

Therefore He appears to us, in ways we can easily understand:
Just as Water... can be changed into a solid/ICE... & also into Steam...
so
Can GOD... change into Jesus... & also into the Holy Spirit.

Click to expand...

ElijahW said:

Fair enough,but I’m not much of a teacher.

First thing up to bat is Platonic dualism. The universe is divided up into what is in motion and what is at rest. Previously Heraclites popularized everything in flux but Plato popularizes only what we can sense is in flux but what we perceive by the intellect is constant. Picking up his thinking on the constant side probably from Parmenides; who emphasized oneness and constancy.

From Plato: “The seen is the changing, and the unseen is the unchanging.” Phaedo
​

From Paul: 2 Cor 4:18 “As we look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are unseen. For the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal.”
​

Materialism verses idealism is the major philosophical debate with Christianity falling on the side of Plato and the idealists. Being initiated at this time is recognizing the spiritual side of the universe.

SOCRATES: “Take a look round, then, and see that none of the uninitiated are listening. Now by the uninitiated I mean the people who believe in nothing but what they can grasp in their hands, and who will not allow that action or generation or anything invisible can have real existence.” Theaetetus
​

Now the big thing to understand here is that Plato’s spiritual side of the universe isn’t understood as it was commonly understood at the time. The understanding of the spiritual elements at the time doesn’t come from philosophers but poets, specifically Homer. These gods are understood like how they are presented in the poems which is like people. Plato’s constant understanding of the spiritual elements opposes this thinking and also any incentive to sacrifice to them. This is why Socrates and early Christians get accused of being atheists because compared to how they had historically been understood, they weren’t any type of god at all. To the platonic philosophers, the spiritual side isn’t engaged by sacrifices and ritual but by the intellect.

“That which is apprehended by intelligence and reason is always in the same state; but that which is conceived by opinion with the help of sensation and without reason, is always in a process of becoming and perishing and never really is.” Plato Timaeus
​

The intellect shows an ideal concept, while sensation shows a flawed particular of that concept. This is seen in simple forms like a circle being perfect in concept but a particular of a perfect circle in the material world would be impossible to achieve. A person also can be a particular of a spiritual element and this is where you get stuff like Jesus being the Word in the flesh. The “Word” there is actually “Logos” which means “Reason” in Greek. This is because Jesus is seen as embodying it perfectly with is life and death.

Reason (Logos), to the idealists, is a real spiritual element that can be personified by a person, which Jesus is said to have done. This spiritual elements are thought to have been created from an initial spiritual element that gets labeled “God” or the “Father”. The big thing to understand about Plato’s understanding of God is that it is unknowable.

“the father and maker of all this universe is past finding out; and even if we found him, to tell of him to all men would be impossible.” Timaeus
​

Because to the idealists every idea you have in your head is a created entity, none of them can be the creator. While we can conceive of the spiritual side we can’t conceive of its creator because we are working with things that are different than the creator of those things. This is why you have Paul pointing at the unknown god in Acts.

Now Plato’s and the early church fathers understanding of God wasn’t only unknowable but it was actively creating. Because the main belief is that the spiritual elements were constant, whatever God was doing at the beginning, God is still doing now.

This is in contrast with something more materialistic like Aristotle put forward, where there may be a creator but after the creation, the clockwork nature of the universe doesn’t require an active God. Because Plato saw matter as being formed by the ideals and the God as the constant creator of the ideals he required an understanding of God that was still active

So now you have a man who is personifying a spiritual element, that is being actively manifested by the activity of another spiritual element. Son, Ghost and Father.

Click to expand...

ElijahW said:

If you are still imagining God and the Holy Spirit anthropomorphically, then yes you probably missed something. This specifically:

"Now the big thing to understand here is that Plato’s spiritual side of the universe isn’t understood as it was commonly understood at the time. The understanding of the spiritual elements at the time doesn’t come from philosophers but poets, specifically Homer. These gods are understood like how they are presented in the poems which is like people. Plato’s constant understanding of the spiritual elements opposes this thinking and also any incentive to sacrifice to them. This is why Socrates and early Christians get accused of being atheists because compared to how they had historically been understood, they weren’t any type of god at all. To the platonic philosophers, the spiritual side isn’t engaged by sacrifices and ritual but by the intellect."
​

Click to expand...

ElijahW said:

Maybe you could give me a few sentences explaining what understanding of Plato's philosophy you were able to pick up from what I wrote. I don't know where your confusion is.

Click to expand...

ElijahW said:

Plato felt that they weren't similar to humans. Then, like today, most people shaped their understanding of Gods from art and poetry and he was trying to make an argument against that understanding. Plato's big argument is that spiritual elements were constant. He didn't believe there were human-like spirtial beings out there that you engaged with the intellect. He thought that what we were perceiving in our intellect was the spiritual beings controlling the universe themselves. Through proper reasoning by the intellect we can learn the truth and if we act on that truth we become a manifestation of the spirit that brought us to the truth.

These spiritual beings are being produced by the constant activity of the original spiritual being we call God. So if you were to come to know the truth by the Holy Spirit, (which isn't a person but the source of our intellectual abilities) and then acted on them you would be personifying not only the Holy Spirit but the source of that spirit. If you accept that the spirit is the product of the activity of God then you are personifying God himself by doing his will. There is one actual human doing the work but three different beings' activity is the source of the work being done.

Click to expand...

ElijahW said:

No Plato didn't see God as a person. No one did that was educated at the time of Jesus. Here is Origen addressing the issue specifically.

”We read in many passages of the divine scripture that God speaks to men. For this reason the Jews indeed, but also some of our people, supposed that God should be understood as a man, that is, adorned with human members and human appearance. But the philosophers despise these stories as fabulous and formed in the likeness of poetic fictions. Because of this it seems to be that I must first discuss these few matters and then come to those words which have been read.

First therefore, let my word be to those outside the Church who arrogantly clamor around us, saying that it is not appropriate for the most exalted and invisible and incorporeal god to experience human affections. For if, they say, you give him the experience of speaking, you will, doubtlessly, give him also a mouth and a tongue and the other members with which the function of speaking is performed. But if this be so, one has departed from the invisible and incorporeal God.” Genesis Homily 3, Origen
​

Click to expand...