The Trinity...how do u explain it?

Knight · Jul 3, 2003

Philip,
You seem determined to percieve modalism.

Take a look at this site. It describes this analogy in more detail than I have time for.

http://www.carm.org/doctrine/trinitylook.htm

Philip · Jul 3, 2003

Knight said:
I think I see where you're getting the modalism idea from in this analogy.
The past becomes the present which becomes the future.

Thats it.

This is not what this analogy is attempting to describe about God. You're looking at it linearly. Try looking at it globally.

I understand what you are saying. I think the analogy is too easily misunderstood.

It is better than the water analogy, though.

Let me tell you what I don't like about the clover analogy. It can suggest that God is an office (the whole clover) made up by three leaves. THis can still be useful for explaining the Trinity as long as it is understood that the whole clover represents the person of God and not an office.

Agreed.

As with any of these some exposition is necessary for the Trinity to be explained. I don't think any one of us would just drop the analogy on someone without providing the explanation.

Absolutely. The time analogy is useful if it is properly explained, especially in combination with other analogies. Sadly, I have come across many people (not you) who explain the Trinity with a brief two or three sentence analogy and leave it at that.

Philip · Jul 3, 2003

Knight said:
Take a look at this site. It describes this analogy in more detail than I have time for.

http://www.carm.org/doctrine/trinitylook.htm

That is well done. I like the combination of the time analogy and the space analogy. I think it works well.

I don't like the matter one, but that is for scientific, not theological, reasons.

Knight · Jul 3, 2003

I'm glad we are in agreement. I will now attempt to resist the urge to strangle you. (Kidding, of course...)

I never cared much for the water analogy either because the three states cannot exist as one.

The time analogy works for me because of the way I think of time. I see time as three aspects of the same concept. Each is distinct yet each is the same. I do not see it as one becoming the other because once the past becomes the present you still have the past. When the present becomes the future that future becomes the present and you still have a future. Tomorrow never comes. At any point in time there has been a past, present and future. (Dizzy yet? I guess those Quantum Physics classes are paying off.)

I'm glad you liked the link. The author does an excellent job of explaining the Trinity.

WesleyJohn · Jul 3, 2003

Excellent discussion.

As far as I'm concerned, there is a great danger to any analogy or diagram (even my diagram that I uploaded) to explain the Trinity. The danger is that we limit God to the construct we have created to attempt to describe Him. While that doesn't mean that we shouldn't try, we must always remind ourselves that He is so much bigger and more complex than we could possibly fully understand this side of the grave (and maybe even the other side...)

Peace,

WJ

Knight · Jul 3, 2003

WesleyJohn said:
Excellent discussion.

As far as I'm concerned, there is a great danger to any analogy or diagram (even my diagram that I uploaded) to explain the Trinity. The danger is that we limit God to the construct we have created to attempt to describe Him. While that doesn't mean that we shouldn't try, we must always remind ourselves that He is so much bigger and more complex than we could possibly fully understand this side of the grave (and maybe even the other side...)

Peace,

WJ

Good point.

Would it be fair to say that there is danger in an unexplained analogy?

I don't believe that any of this is going to allow us to completely understand the Trinity. We can, jowever, get an idea of what a trinity is like by using analogies. They are to be used for teaching and explanation nothing more.

Jesus used analogies in His teaching as well.

JT · Jul 3, 2003

God = The Father, the Primordial Light, the source of all life which issued from His radiation.

Jesus = The Son, or conformation of the Love of God, who was sent to Earth to try and correct the eering human spirits.

Imanuel = The God Spirit, the Creative Will of God. All Creations came into existance through the radiation of Imanuel.

Note: The Father and Son in the Divine sense is different than the human sense. In the human sense father and son can never be one, since we are talking about two different spirits. In this sense God is in the two Sons, working through them, in them.

Allen2 · Jul 4, 2003

JT: Hi! I'm curious about how you put your ideas together. Your description of God doesn't seem to folllow the early Church statements. Immanuel as used in Is.7:14 and Matt.1:22 refers not to the Holy Spirit but Jesus the Son of God. God bless, Al

JT · Jul 4, 2003

Allen2 said:
JT: Hi! I'm curious about how you put your ideas together. Your description of God doesn't seem to folllow the early Church statements. Immanuel as used in Is.7:14 and Matt.1:22 refers not to the Holy Spirit but Jesus the Son of God. God bless, Al

How do you know Isaiah was talking about Jesus. Why not say Jesus? That was His name, was it not? Why say Imanuel? A person only has one name, not two. Surely some must sense the flaws in this, but they carry on with the same beliefs as this is easier.......There is no logic there whatever, and God would not do something that lacks in logic.

And Matthew wrongly misinterprets Isaiah, quoting him in 1:23. Jesus never called himself Imanuel. This is the opinion of one man and you now see the dangers where men base their convictions on the wrong beliefs of others.

I have yet to find a Christian that can offer an explaination of the Holy Spirit...........Trust me, Imanuel is the God Spirit, the way God creates. All creations came into being through His name. Note - you can never sin by the Holy Spirit, as the laws of Creation are anchored in Him.

pax · Jul 4, 2003

I think there was a story I read some time ago that went something like this.

St. Augustine (I think) was walking down a beach meditating on the Trinity. "One God, three parts how can it be?" While he was walking he ran into a small child who had dug a hole and was taking water from the vast ocean and placing it in the hole. When Augustine inquired as to what the boy was doing he said, "I'm putting the ocean into that hole," to which Augustine replied, "The ocean is much to large to fit into that tiny hole." The boy looked at him and said, "So too is it impossible for your limited understanding to grasp a mystery as profound as the Holy Trinity." The boy quickly disappeared, he was an angel.

There is the definition of the Son proceeding from the Father and the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father through the Son, but really the mystery is one of the greatest mysteries in Christianity. We can compare God to water, steam, and ice, but really we are attempting to greatly dumb down a mystery that is far beyond human comprehension.

Philip · Jul 4, 2003

JT said:
And Matthew wrongly misinterprets Isaiah, quoting him in 1:23. Jesus never called himself Imanuel. This is the opinion of one man and you now see the dangers where men base their convictions on the wrong beliefs of others.

Matthew's writings were inspired by the Holy Spirit. They are not the opinions of one man

Trust me, Imanuel is the God Spirit.

That is the opinion of pne man. I'll stick with the inspired version.

MariaRegina · Jul 5, 2003

My dearest Brothers in Christ:

Christ is in our midst!

What about the analogy which Christ Himself gave:

"I am the Light."

then look at the three primary colors of light.

Just a thought.

It was the Orthodox St. Patrick of Ireland who came up with the three-leafed clover to help explain the Trinity.

Your sister in Christ,

Elizabeth

JT · Jul 5, 2003

Philip said:
Matthew's writings were inspired by the Holy Spirit. They are not the opinions of one man

That is the opinion of pne man. I'll stick with the inspired version.

You don't know what your'e talking about. Address the inconsistency........someone's got something wrong ....Matthew, as all the disciples, was chosen because of his naturalness. But people make mistakes............ Like I say, explain the lack of clear logic. Jesus never called Himslef Imanuel, not once.

WesleyJohn · Jul 5, 2003

JT...

Please don't tell someone authoritatively that they "don't know what they're talking about." It certainly does nothing to strengthen your argument.

Your logical conclusion does not follow. I see no inconsistency...just because Jesus didn't call Himself Immanuel doesn't mean that He wasn't.

Do you know what Immanuel means? It means 'God with us.' What better way to understand 'God with us' then through the incarnation?

Also, I have another question. Do you believe then that it was the Holy Spirit who was engaged in the creation of the world? Do you believe that the Father was not engaged in creation, or that Jesus was not engaged in creation?

Peace,

WJ

MariaRegina · Jul 5, 2003

WesleyJohn said:
Also, I have another question. Do you believe then that it was the Holy Spirit who was engaged in the creation of the world? Do you believe that the Father was not engaged in creation, or that Jesus was not engaged in creation?
WJ

My dearest joy in Christ: Christ is Risen!

It appears that the Bible says that the All-Holy Trinity was involved in the creation of the world and of man.

"Let us create man in our own image."

Notice the use of the plural adjective, "our".

The Holy Spirit moved over the waters.

God spoke, implies God the Father speaking, and His Word doing.

So I believe the creation of the world and man was a Trinitarian action.

Your Sister in Christ,
Elizabeth

WesleyJohn · Jul 5, 2003

I absolutely agree with you Sister Elizabeth. I think there is further evidence from Genesis where it talks of the Spirit hovering over the waters, and from John, when it talks about the Word being with God in the beginning.

I was attempting to understand what JT believed regarding Trinitarian involvement in the creation.

Peace,

WJ

JT · Jul 5, 2003

WesleyJohn said:
JT...

Please don't tell someone authoritatively that they "don't know what they're talking about." It certainly does nothing to strengthen your argument.

Your logical conclusion does not follow. I see no inconsistency...just because Jesus didn't call Himself Immanuel doesn't mean that He wasn't.

Do you know what Immanuel means? It means 'God with us.' What better way to understand 'God with us' then through the incarnation?

Also, I have another question. Do you believe then that it was the Holy Spirit who was engaged in the creation of the world? Do you believe that the Father was not engaged in creation, or that Jesus was not engaged in creation?

Peace,

WJ

I know what Imanuel means. What does that have to do with Jesus? The Holy Spirit Imanuel / Parsifal is responsible for all Creations outside of the immediate radiation of God, known as the Divine.

I give you a quote from my source:

Creation had to come into existence through the Creative Will of God the Father! As such the Creative Will of God the Father is Imanuel, Who is personal in His Creating and yet stands or remains completely in the Father, and the Father is in Him as He creates.
I believe that in this way many things will become increasingly comprehensible to you!
Just as the Creative Will Imanuel is personal so also the Love became personal in the activity in Jesus.
Both being Parts of the Father are one with Him, and the Father is within Them. From eternity unto all eternity!

This is where my knowledge comes from:The answers to everything are within, since the source is from the highest.

http://www.grailmessage.com/

WesleyJohn · Jul 5, 2003

Alright. Thank you for explaining that your source is extra-biblical. I fail to see any Biblical evidence that Immanuel is the Holy Spirit, and I don't accept your source as authoritative. Probably you and I should not debate this topic here, as it is derailing the intent of the OP.

Peace,

WJ

Theresa · Jul 5, 2003

I just wanted to pop in and add this:

"Brown and Jones and Robinson are three distinct persons each possesing a human nature. So far, as you say, there is a complete parallel. Father, Son, And Spirit are three distinct persons, each possessing divine nature.

But observe the difference. Brown and Jones and Robinson each has his own allotment of human nature; Jones does not love with Robinson's will. Each has his own. The phrase "three men," then, means three distinct persons, each with hsi own seperate human nature, his own seperate equipment as man.

The phrase "three Gods" could only mean three distinct persons, each with his own seperate divine nature, his own seperate equipment as God. But this is not so. They possess one single nature; they do in fact what our three men could not do-they know with the same intellect, love with the same will. They are three persons and each is God; but they are one God, not three."

Theology for Beginners - Frank J. Sheed

Philip · Jul 5, 2003

JT said:
I give you a quote from my source:

Do you accept this source over that of the inspired word of God as recorded by Matthew?

BTW, why is you source not the opinion of one man?

The Trinity...how do u explain it?

Knight of the Cross

Orthodoxy: Old School, Hard Core Christianity

Orthodoxy: Old School, Hard Core Christianity

Knight of the Cross

Contributor

Knight of the Cross

Regular Member

Active Member

Regular Member

Veteran

Orthodoxy: Old School, Hard Core Christianity

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Regular Member

Contributor

With Reason

Orthodoxy: Old School, Hard Core Christianity

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency