Please explain the Trinity

[razeontherock]

I realize several people have asked for an explanation of the Trinity, but the answers given doesn’t quite make sense to me and because I can’t respond on those threads I have to start my own. So here is my questions:
*Is Jesus, God, and the Holy Spirit the same God with 3 nicknames? if so how could one be the son and the other the father?
*Are they each a fraction of a God and only when together they are a complete God? (kinda like the "egg white, yolk, and shell" explanation I've heard before
*Or are they each 3 separate Gods? (Polytheism)
If something different please explain

Ken

D) None of the above

 

[razeontherock]

Everyone seems to be saying “God” is like one being but maybe God is a group! Maybe the term God; the father, son and holy ghost, is like saying (in my case) the Jones family; me my brother, sister, and parents. So just as you say 1 God 3 persons, the Jones family is 1 family 5 persons. Jesus is not a complete God by himself, he is just a member of God as is the Father, and Holy Spirit, and I am not a complete Jones family by myself I am just a member of the Jones family; as is my siblings, and parents.
What do you think? For those who object, are there any bible references to back up your objections?

Ken

Jesus, as a human, was NEVER the entirety of God. To say He was just makes no sense, and it is this aspect that Muslims (rightly) object to so strongly. To make this as clear as possible, if G-d is anything like what we have revealed via the Bible, there was never a time He wasn't present at Neptune. As a human, Jesus being born in the manger was NOT on Neptune!

So obviously there must be some distinction, right?

To be able to understand how, in any way, Jesus could be Divine even with that limitation, is the purpose the doctrine of Trinity serves.

While being fully human, Jesus was also fully G-d. Which does NOT state that God was "fully Jesus," in the sense of being limited to His flesh and bone. To look at the part of Jesus that does not include His flesh and bone, is to refer to both the office of "Christ," and also the second Person of the Godhead, which is the Son of God. This is the part that was always the active agent, apart from mankind. The part that was active through mankind, was the Holy Spirit.

So perhaps you can see what was just said, and gain a little appreciation for the significance of Jesus' Incarnation (the process of taking on a human body, via natural childbirth)

 

[Ken-1122]

Jesus, as a human, was NEVER the entirety of God. To say He was just makes no sense, and it is this aspect that Muslims (rightly) object to so strongly. To make this as clear as possible, if G-d is anything like what we have revealed via the Bible, there was never a time He wasn't present at Neptune. As a human, Jesus being born in the manger was NOT on Neptune!

So obviously there must be some distinction, right?

To be able to understand how, in any way, Jesus could be Divine even with that limitation, is the purpose the doctrine of Trinity serves.

While being fully human, Jesus was also fully G-d. Which does NOT state that God was "fully Jesus," in the sense of being limited to His flesh and bone. To look at the part of Jesus that does not include His flesh and bone, is to refer to both the office of "Christ," and also the second Person of the Godhead, which is the Son of God. This is the part that was always the active agent, apart from mankind. The part that was active through mankind, was the Holy Spirit.

So perhaps you can see what was just said, and gain a little appreciation for the significance of Jesus' Incarnation (the process of taking on a human body, via natural childbirth)

What is "neptune"? Also what do you think about what I said above?

Ken

 

[ChristianT]

What is "neptune"? Also what do you think about what I said above?

Ken

That means, God being omnipresent (in the sense of His infinite "size," God is everywhere, including Neptune. Jesus, understood with the doctrine of the Incarnation, was never physically able to be on Neptune.

 

[Ken-1122]

That means, God being omnipresent (in the sense of His infinite "size," God is everywhere, including Neptune. Jesus, understood with the doctrine of the Incarnation, was never physically able to be on Neptune.

Thanks for clearing that up for me. What do you think about my suggestion that maybe Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Ghost are not the totality of God by themselves but are only a part of God individually; and make up the total God together; sort of like a family?

Ken

 

[ChristianT]

Thanks for clearing that up for me. What do you think about my suggestion that maybe Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Ghost are not the totality of God by themselves but are only a part of God individually; and make up the total God together; sort of like a family?

Ken

That makes logical sense; it doesn't appear to contradict scripture in any way... So I won't say no (since that seems plausible), but I won't say yes, because Scripture doesn't say anything specifically and so we can't just make stuff up, and saying God is like a family of persons sounds like it's bordering on polytheism / tritheism in a way, despite God being one being implied. However I will go with a "maybe." Unless someone shows where scripture says otherwise or something theologically / logically conflicts with that theory of God being like a family, I will accept maybe.

p.s. sorry if that's hard to understand, I'm sure it makes sense?

 

[Ken-1122]

That makes logical sense; it doesn't appear to contradict scripture in any way... So I won't say no (since that seems plausible), but I won't say yes, because Scripture doesn't say anything specifically and so we can't just make stuff up, and saying God is like a family of persons sounds like it's bordering on polytheism / tritheism in a way, despite God being one being implied. However I will go with a "maybe." Unless someone shows where scripture says otherwise or something theologically / logically conflicts with that theory of God being like a family, I will accept maybe.

p.s. sorry if that's hard to understand, I'm sure it makes sense?

What you said is not difficult to understand, and thanks for your reply.

K

 

[secondtimearound]

I agree with Craig that this is a great analogy for the Trinity.


What is a Good Analogy of the Trinity? (William Lane Craig) - YouTube

 

[ChristianT]

I agree with Craig that this is a great analogy for the Trinity.


What is a Good Analogy of the Trinity? (William Lane Craig) - YouTube

very clever, I would never have been able to bridge that gap. Curses that they don't teach the minor mythologies in 9th grade, only the major "gods."

 

[daviddub]

[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Originally Posted by elopez[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]God is each person and each person is God. The three are the same one God, just different persons. It's not like saying you have 3 cars but 1 automobile as as there would only be one automobile, not even 3 separate ones. [/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Then you would have one person not 3 separate people[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Originally Posted by elopez;59004095[B[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Separate means there is a distinction between two or more things. There can be one God existent in three persons, the same God but distinct persons to the extent of their roles.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]It sounds like you are saying he is one and more than one at the same time! That does not make sense!

And it also sounds like many of you guys are using the term persons to discribe more than one person. I'm not getting this; in grade school I learned that "people" was plural for "person". To use persons to discribe more than one person is akin to using gooses to discribe more than one goose. Maybe that has something to do with why what you guys are saying doesn't make any sense to me; i don't know?

K

Hey Ken, I think your misunderstanding is very simply illustrated in this post (embedded). Your misunderstanding is also very clearly illustrated by your analogy: 3 cars & 1 automobile.

elopez said "the three are the same one God." You said "then you would have one person, not three separate people."[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Your misunderstanding is of this sort: You assume that the term ‘God’ is related to the term ‘person(s)/people’ in the same way as the term ‘automobile’ is related to the word ‘car(s).’[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]It is not so.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Whereas, a car is a type of automobile, and furthermore may be used synonymously; a person is NOT a type of God, nor ought it be used (or considered to be) synonymously.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]God is not a person, so that if you say that He is comprised as 3 people you would not be saying one person (God) is comprised as three people. Before I give you what I think might be a more helpful analogy I repeat, God is not a term that means person or some such.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]So, rather than using the (automobile/car) analogy which is not useful, let’s try this one.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]First, one reason I think this analogy fitting is because the scripture says God created man in his image, and after his likeness (3:26). Now, while some have drawn the analogy out of this scripture as (a man ≈ God) the scripture did not use the indefinite article ‘a.’ Rather, God made “man,” in his image, that is, mankind, or for the sake of clarity, humanity.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I will use the word ‘Divinity’ as synonymous with God as we are here using the term.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Disclaimer:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](I’m throughout using the term humanity as that nature of being, which is fundamentally human.) (I am likewise using the term Divinity as that nature of being, which is fundamentally Divine.)[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Therefore the analogy I will use is this: Divinity is to (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) as humanity is to Ken, elopez, and all human persons. Now, no analogy is perfect, however I think that this one is useful.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Divinity/God is a nature of being of which there are three persons.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Humanity is a lesser nature of being of which there are many persons.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Neither person is merely fractionally human, so that they are only fully human when they come together. Rather each person is fully human, whether together or separate.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Furthermore, when humans are born and die, they neither take away from, nor add to humanity (using the sense of it that I announced above, and not the use which simply takes ‘humanity’ to merely mean every human person). They may add to/subtract from the total quantity of humans. However, in accordance with the sense of the word which I am using, they neither add to nor subtract from the nature of humanity itself. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Humanity is not more or less humanity based upon the quantity. So that when the scripture says that the fullness of the Godhead dwelt in Jesus bodily. It may be taken as a very simple and, in this discussion, applicable statement. It is as if I said that all of humanity is found in me. That is to say, I am fully human and not lacking anything fundamental to human nature…not me only, however. Each human being is fully and completely human whether infant or elder, tall or short, fat, or skinny healthy or crippled.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Likewise, every person of the Godhead is completely and absolutely Divine, that is to say God. This is like saying every person of humanity is completely and absolutely human. No person of God is fractionally God, and no person of humanity is fractionally human.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Now, again, I don’t know any perfect analogy, but this is a useful one to understanding that each person is equally and severally God, that is Divine, and yet they are distinct persons…just as we all who partake of humanity are equally and severally human, and yet humanity is one nature. There are not two humanities, there is one; not 6 billion (or whatever the human population is) but 1 humanity.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]However, they are one in a way that we are not. We (humans) are merely one in nature. God is furthermore one in purpose, in knowledge, in character, in power, etc. This is the case ( I speak as mere man here) such that if (were such a thing possible) the person who is the Father were instead the Son, and the person who is the Son instead the Father (or any other such switching of roles, we would know God no differently than we know Him now. It would yield no practical difference.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]So I say now, as it was said before: there are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one.[/FONT]

 

[razeontherock]

What is "neptune"?

Neptune is a planet, Ken.

 

[razeontherock]

However, they are one in a way that we are not. We (humans) are merely one in nature. God is furthermore one in purpose, in knowledge, in character, in power, etc.

So I say now, as it was said before: there are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one.

He is also One in ESSENCE. Ken's "family" idea still seems to have polytheism at it's core, and it is this idea of essence that addresses that ...

 

[daviddub]

He is also One in ESSENCE. Ken's "family" idea still seems to have polytheism at it's core, and it is this idea of essence that addresses that ...

What is the definition of essence that you are using?

 

[razeontherock]

Of One Being with the Father

 

[Ken-1122]

I agree with Craig that this is a great analogy for the Trinity.


What is a Good Analogy of the Trinity? (William Lane Craig) - YouTube

I kinda like that explanation. But if the mythical dog has 3 heads, 3 brains and only 1 body, it is still only 1 dog. The fact that it has 3 separate thought process IMO is sorta like a person who has multiple personalities, and has complete control of each of them. The concept of the Trinity I’ve gotten from other Christians was that each member were separate from each other unlike the mythical dog in the video. It is often said 3 persons one God, having more than one head or brain doesn’t make you more than one person.

Ken

 

[Ken-1122]

[FONT=&quot]Hey Ken, I think your misunderstanding is very simply illustrated in this post (embedded). Your misunderstanding is also very clearly illustrated by your analogy: 3 cars & 1 automobile.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]elopez said "the three are the same one God." You said "then you would have one person, not three separate people."[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Your misunderstanding is of this sort: You assume that the term ‘God’ is related to the term ‘person(s)/people’ in the same way as the term ‘automobile’ is related to the word ‘car(s).’[/FONT]

You've got it backwards. I assume the term God is related to person the same way the term car is related to automobile. God being a type of person; a Car being a type of automobile.
[FONT=&quot]

It is not so.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Whereas, a car is a type of automobile, and furthermore may be used synonymously; a person is NOT a type of God, nor ought it be used (or considered to be) synonymously.[/FONT]

But Jesus, the father, and HS are each a type of person, right?

[FONT=&quot]

God is not a person, so that if you say that He is comprised as 3 people you would not be saying one person (God) is comprised as three people. Before I give you what I think might be a more helpful analogy I repeat, God is not a term that means person or some such.

[/FONT]
That might be your opinion, but the person I was questioning believed Jesus was a person, God the father, was a person and the Holy Spirit was a person.
[FONT=&quot]

So, rather than using the (automobile/car) analogy which is not useful, let’s try this one.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]First, one reason I think this analogy fitting is because the scripture says God created man in his image, and after his likeness (3:26). Now, while some have drawn the analogy out of this scripture as (a man ≈ God) the scripture did not use the indefinite article ‘a.’ Rather, God made “man,” in his image, that is, mankind, or for the sake of clarity, humanity.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I will use the word ‘Divinity’ as synonymous with God as we are here using the term.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Disclaimer:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](I’m throughout using the term humanity as that nature of being, which is fundamentally human.) (I am likewise using the term Divinity as that nature of being, which is fundamentally Divine.)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Therefore the analogy I will use is this: Divinity is to (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) as humanity is to Ken, elopez, and all human persons. Now, no analogy is perfect, however I think that this one is useful.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Divinity/God is a nature of being of which there are three persons.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Humanity is a lesser nature of being of which there are many persons.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Neither person is merely fractionally human, so that they are only fully human when they come together. Rather each person is fully human, whether together or separate.[/FONT]

But Ken, elopez, and all human persons are a fraction of humanity and only make up the whole of humanity when counted together. In that response they were claiming that each person of divinity were fully God by themselves, not just devine.

[FONT=&quot]

Furthermore, when humans are born and die, they neither take away from, nor add to humanity (using the sense of it that I announced above, and not the use which simply takes ‘humanity’ to merely mean every human person). They may add to/subtract from the total quantity of humans. However, in accordance with the sense of the word which I am using, they neither add to nor subtract from the nature of humanity itself.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Humanity is not more or less humanity based upon the quantity. So that when the scripture says that the fullness of the Godhead dwelt in Jesus bodily. It may be taken as a very simple and, in this discussion, applicable statement. It is as if I said that all of humanity is found in me. That is to say, I am fully human and not lacking anything fundamental to human nature…not me only, however. Each human being is fully and completely human whether infant or elder, tall or short, fat, or skinny healthy or crippled.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Likewise, every person of the Godhead is completely and absolutely Divine, that is to say God. This is like saying every person of humanity is completely and absolutely human. No person of God is fractionally God, and no person of humanity is fractionally human.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Now, again, I don’t know any perfect analogy, but this is a useful one to understanding that each person is equally and severally God, that is Divine, and yet they are distinct persons…just as we all who partake of humanity are equally and severally human, and yet humanity is one nature. There are not two humanities, there is one; not 6 billion (or whatever the human population is) but 1 humanity.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]However, they are one in a way that we are not. We (humans) are merely one in nature. God is furthermore one in purpose, in knowledge, in character, in power, etc. This is the case ( I speak as mere man here) such that if (were such a thing possible) the person who is the Father were instead the Son, and the person who is the Son instead the Father (or any other such switching of roles, we would know God no differently than we know Him now. It would yield no practical difference.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]So I say now, as it was said before: there are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one.[/FONT]

Going by your analogy, a human is one; singular. Humanity refers to all humans together, which is plural; more than one.
Devine is one; singular. God refers to all divinity together, which is plural; more than one. Sounds like your idea of God is more like the family analogy I mentioned in post #140. Would you agree?

 

[Ken-1122]

Neptune is a planet, Ken.

Yeah “Christian T” kinda cleared it up for me. You were saying God is everywhere which means he is not only on Neptune, but also on Mars, the Moon, the Sun, in Hell, and every other place that exists; right? The problem with that is that would mean we are all a part of God, and the Trinity can’t be 3 separate people/persons because to separate implies borders and you can’t have borders if you gonna be everywhere right?

Ken

 

[ChristianT]

How are we "a part of God?" I agree that we are 'apart from God' or more accurately not God.

 

[Ken-1122]

How are we "a part of God?" I agree that we are 'apart from God' or more accurately not God.

If God is everywhere, that means he occupies the same space that we occupy right? Otherwise God would have borders which would mean he is not everywhere. If God occupy the same space as we do, that would mean he is a part of us, or we are a part of him.
Ken

 

[razeontherock]

But if the mythical dog has 3 heads, 3 brains and only 1 body, it is still only 1 dog.

So the part that is throwing you, is the word "Persons." I agree, it's a poor choice of word. How 'bout, "offices?" I mean, how many offices did Ben Franklin hold? He ran the town paper, (having founded both the town and the idea of a town paper) he ran the local post office (having ... ya, you guessed it) he founded the local library and fire Dep't, having ... (yeah, it's getting redundant, isn't it?)

Christ is an "office." This does not present a perfect understanding, but you might find it helpful?