Trinity -sophistry?

[durangodawood]

They would add up if they were separate and not one. Yet the Trinity doctrine teaches they are three and one. So adding them would not make sense.

Like I said in my first post: best not to demand that it make sense.
.

 

[AskTheFamily]

No, Jesus is God. As is the Father and the Holy Spirit. He is one of the three persons who is God so it makes sense to say He is God.

It would make less sense to say "God is Jesus" because He is also the Father and the Holy Spirit. Jesus is not the Father or the Holy Spirit, He is the Son.

I don't see any difference in saying "Jesus is God" and "God is Jesus"..they are identical statements.

If Jesus is not the father or the holy spirit, then they are distinct and don't refer to same being.

Saying the Father is one of three persons is correct. Along with the Son and Holy Spirit, the Father is God.

Saying God is one of three persons is incorrect, because He is all three.

But when you state the father is God, and the father is one of three persons, you are indirectly stating that God is one of thee persons. Ofcourse it doesn't make sense to say Jesus is God when God is "three" either.

Muhammad could have written even "they believe God the Father is one of three" and that would make sense.

He didn't state what they believe, he stated what they say, and "they say God is one of three" is to me identical to the statement "they believe God the Father is One of three"...

If God is the Father, and he is one of three, then it's stating God is one of three. Ofcourse it's absurd...

Being three persons while at the same time being the first, second and third of the three persons does not make any less sense than being all merciful and the avenger at the same time.

Going back to attributes ay...we going in circles.

(1) Father, (1) Son, (1) Holy Spirit = (1) God.

1x1x1=1

I see two equations

3 = 1
1/3 = 1

This what trinity is claiming to me. I don't know what it means to multiply them but I know + makes sense because + can refer to conjugation which is denoted by "and".

 

[cupid dave]

And what I am saying, is that you don't understand what the term "Son" means!

6 [bless and do not curse]I, (as the personification of the concept, Truth), am the way (men ought be lead), and The Truth (about our Reality), and the life (eternal for our species):[bless and do not curse]
no man cometh unto the Father, (almighty Reality), but by me, (Truth).

 

[ViaCrucis]

I don't see any difference in saying "Jesus is God" and "God is Jesus"..they are identical statements.

If Jesus is not the father or the holy spirit, then they are distinct and don't refer to same being.




But when you state the father is God, and the father is one of three persons, you are indirectly stating that God is one of thee persons. Ofcourse it doesn't make sense to say Jesus is God when God is "three" either.


He didn't state what they believe, he stated what they say, and "they say God is one of three" is to me identical to the statement "they believe God the Father is One of three"...

If God is the Father, and he is one of three, then it's stating God is one of three. Ofcourse it's absurd...



Going back to attributes ay...we going in circles.


I see two equations

3 = 1
1/3 = 1

This what trinity is claiming to me. I don't know what it means to multiply them but I know + makes sense because + can refer to conjugation which is denoted by "and".

One and Three. Not 3 = 1.

The Oneness is God's nature, divinity, essence, substance, God's what-ness.

The Threeness is that there is Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

1 = 1

3 = 3

-CryptoLutheran

 

[razeontherock]

to say "Jesus is God" because it would imply the Father and holy spirit are not God.

one of the statements implied by Christians when they say "father is God" and "the father is one in three persons" is "God is one in three persons".

What you don't realize is the doctrine teaches things that contradict itself. It is state God is all three and at the same time stating he is One of these three (does so with both Father and son). It's absurd, and both can't be true, but this what the doctrine teaches.

However 1/3 = 1 is the statement that is being made when you say "father is God" and "God is three persons, father, son, a holy ghost"... 1x1x1 doesn't apply here at all.

It has been pointed out to you literally by ALL of us, that you are claiming it teaches things that really, it does not. What you are claiming makes no sense, we all agree. It would be far better for you to ignore Trinity altogether, than to continue insisting that what you have been taught as a Muslim is somehow "Christian doctrine."

And no one has ever successfully used arithmetic to represent Trinity; rather,Trinity is one (and only one) representation God has given us by which to know Him, and certainly it is not the most detailed. If 1 x 1 x 1 =1 "doesn't apply here at all," why do you insist that any of the things you are wrongly asserting here do apply? Wouldn't that be rather like me asserting what Islam teaches, encountering opposition from every quarter of Islam, and yet insisting I'm right? Wouldn't that put me in a very weak position?

 

[durangodawood]

One and Three. Not 3 = 1.

The Oneness is God's nature, divinity, essence, substance, God's what-ness.

The Threeness is that there is Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

1 = 1

3 = 3

-CryptoLutheran

So they arent three in the same way that God is one?
.

 

[TG123]

I don't see any difference in saying "Jesus is God" and "God is Jesus"..they are identical statements.

They aren't. Just like saying "Muslims are people who believe in God" is not identical to "people who believe in God are Muslims". Statement A is true, statement B is not.

If Jesus is not the father or the holy spirit, then they are distinct and don't refer to same being.

They are different persons of the same God, like Avenger and All Merciful are different attributes of the same God in Islam.

But when you state the father is God, and the father is one of three persons, you are indirectly stating that God is one of thee persons. Ofcourse it doesn't make sense to say Jesus is God when God is "three" either.

When I state the Father is God and that the Father is one of three persons, I am stating that the Father is one of the three persons that God exists as, not that God is one of the three persons. Jesus is one of the three persons God exists as. So both Jesus and the Father (and Holy Spirit) are God.

He didn't state what they believe, he stated what they say, and "they say God is one of three" is to me identical to the statement "they believe God the Father is One of three"...

To you, maybe. But saying God the Father is one of three is not the same as saying God is one of three. The doctrine of the Trinity teaches the first, not the second statement. Muhammad claimed they said "God is one of three", not "God the Father is one of three" and then attributed that to what the Trinity teaches.
I challenge you to find any Christian sect that existed during his time that said that the Trinity teaches God is one of the three. I looked up the Nestorians, Melkites and Jacobites which the tafsir scholars mentioned. They had some disagreements but all defined the Trinity as God existing as three persons- the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit.

Some Christians read surahs in the Quran where it says Allah loves not transgressors and other people, and then conclude that Islam teaches that Allah is incapable of love. Based on what is written in some parts of the Quran they read something and then formulate a statement that is not true. Islam teaches that 'loving' is one of the attributes of God.

If God is the Father, and he is one of three, then it's stating God is one of three. Ofcourse it's absurd...

Nope. The Father is one the three persons. The Son and the Holy Spirit as well. God exists as three persons. He is all of the three, not one of the three.

Going back to attributes ay...we going in circles.

It's a discussion, my friend. That's what happens sometimes.

I see two equations

3 = 1
1/3 = 1

This what trinity is claiming to me. I don't know what it means to multiply them but I know + makes sense because + can refer to conjugation which is denoted by "and".

Both equations are incorrect. There is one God, not three. He is not divided but exists as three persons.

 

[AskTheFamily]

They aren't. Just like saying "Muslims are people who believe in God" is not identical to "people who believe in God are Muslims". Statement A is true, statement B is not.

No it's more like "My Math teacher is Mr. Smith" "Mr. Smith is my Math teacher"...

Your analogy would make sense if there was more then one God. Then the statement "Jesus is a god" would not be identical to the statement "a god is Jesus". But as there is only one God, and referring to God is specific identity, then saying "Jesus is God" is the same as saying "God is Jesus". My analogy is more accurate.

The rest is getting repetitive. To me it just seems you re-asserting the statements in trinity dogma and deny their implications. Every time I talk about their implications, you just deny it and re-assert the trinity statements. So I don't see us going anywhere.

 

[enprever]

Christians should use the plural form for pronouns when speaking of the trinity, than using the singular masculine "he" and "him." It should be, "they" and "them".

 

[razeontherock]

My analogy is more accurate.

This is exactly the problem! You are pretending to know too much, or accusing Christians of doing so, when the fact is we say we don't know all of what you're implying. "Accuracy" is not a valid descriptor of our knowledge of the Ineffable.

 

[ViaCrucis]

So they arent three in the same way that God is one?
.

Three Hypostases (or "persons" if one prefers)

One Ousia (substance/essence/nature/being)

There is one what. God.

If I were to ask, "What is the Father?" the answer would be "God".
If I were to ask, "What is the Son?" the answer would be "God."
If I were to ask, "What is the Spirit?" the answer would be "God."

The Three co-exist, share, participate in and are one being, one what, a single, undivided, inseparable thing, that thing, that being, we call it God.

If I were to ask, "Who is the Father?" the answer would be "Father".
If I were to ask, "Who is the Son?" the answer would be "Son".
etc.

The Father's Father-ness is unique to Him as He relates to the Son and the Spirit; same with the Son and the Spirit.

This is an ontological reality, not merely a perceived reality. It speaks of the interior and actual life of God not merely of us from the outside looking in (so to speak).

We then also speak of the perichoresis, the movement, dance or inter-penetration of the Three; i.e. that the Father is in the Son, that the Son is in the Father (and so on and so forth). This perichoresis ultimately means that to honor the Son (for an example) means we also honor the Father and the Spirit since it is impossible to separate them, they are within one another, sharing in each other, living and moving and existing with one total and absolute Life--again, what we call God.

In all of this we are crucially making sure that we do not confuse what we mean by "Three" and what we mean by "One". It is analogous between making a distinction between a rock's hardness and a rock's smoothness, these are categorically different ways of describing something about the rock. To speak of "Three" is to speak of the Hypostases of God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit), to speak of "One" is to speak of the Ousia of God (God's God-ness).

So we are never saying that God is 3 = 1, but that God is One and Three.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Almost every time a contemporary Christian tries to explain the Trinity, he or she ends up with a definition that was declared heretical by the early church fathers.

And the best part is: they don't even realize this.

The way I see it, this whole "trinity"-thing is a weird remnant of the factionalism and power struggles of the first few centuries CE: with Paul's introduction of the concept of messiah-as-life-death-rebirth-deity, the stage was set for an epic quibble of definitions that started well before the New Testament had been written and compiled in its entirety.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Three Hypostases (or "persons" if one prefers)

One Ousia (substance/essence/nature/being)

There is one what. God.

If I were to ask, "What is the Father?" the answer would be "God".
If I were to ask, "What is the Son?" the answer would be "God."
If I were to ask, "What is the Spirit?" the answer would be "God."

The Three co-exist, share, participate in and are one being, one what, a single, undivided, inseparable thing, that thing, that being, we call it God.

If I were to ask, "Who is the Father?" the answer would be "Father".
If I were to ask, "Who is the Son?" the answer would be "Son".
etc.

The Father's Father-ness is unique to Him as He relates to the Son and the Spirit; same with the Son and the Spirit.

This is an ontological reality, not merely a perceived reality. It speaks of the interior and actual life of God not merely of us from the outside looking in (so to speak).

We then also speak of the perichoresis, the movement, dance or inter-penetration of the Three; i.e. that the Father is in the Son, that the Son is in the Father (and so on and so forth). This perichoresis ultimately means that to honor the Son (for an example) means we also honor the Father and the Spirit since it is impossible to separate them, they are within one another, sharing in each other, living and moving and existing with one total and absolute Life--again, what we call God.

In all of this we are crucially making sure that we do not confuse what we mean by "Three" and what we mean by "One". It is analogous between making a distinction between a rock's hardness and a rock's smoothness, these are categorically different ways of describing something about the rock. To speak of "Three" is to speak of the Hypostases of God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit), to speak of "One" is to speak of the Ousia of God (God's God-ness).

So we are never saying that God is 3 = 1, but that God is One and Three.

-CryptoLutheran

Excellent post, by the way! Somebody's done his homework properly, it seems!

 

[cupid dave]

Almost every time a contemporary Christian tries to explain the Trinity, he or she ends up with a definition that was declared heretical by the early church fathers.

And the best part is: they don't even realize this.

The way I see it, this whole "trinity"-thing is a weird remnant of the factionalism and power struggles of the first few centuries CE: with Paul's introduction of the concept of messiah-as-life-death-rebirth-deity, the stage was set for an epic quibble of definitions that started well before the New Testament had been written and compiled in its entirety.

Nah...

When Christ said, "I am The Truth," he defined his own image of God as almighty Reality men are born into.

Truth in our mind is inseparable from the Reality it represents.
In that sense, Truth is Reality as one corresponds to the other, one to one.

 

[enprever]

Most Christians I know and have spoken to always explain the trinity as "modalism". Yet according to dead church theologians (the highest of all sources, of course), this is "heresy." They use the "I'm a father to my kids, husband to my wife, and employee to my boss" analogy, which is not three separate beings / persons, but three separate ROLES. Now it makes more sense than having 3 separate Persons, which are not called separate beings or gods but really are, but evidently, this is heresy.

A Jew would explain it thusly: God is revealed in he Hebrew bible as a burning bush, an evil spirit from the Lord, and as a lying spirit from the Lord. Do we make a "trinity" out of that? God forbid, says the Jew.

Technically the trinity says that the son and spirit were created anyway. They made not use the word "created" but it's the same idea. The Nicean creed even says that at one point, the son was not a separate being, same with the spirit... but were BROUGHT FORTH by the Father. How could God have not been a separate being, yet now suddenly is, is absurd.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Most Christians I know and have spoken to always explain the trinity as "modalism". Yet according to dead church theologians (the highest of all sources, of course), this is "heresy." They use the "I'm a father to my kids, husband to my wife, and employee to my boss" analogy, which is not three separate beings / persons, but three separate ROLES. Now it makes more sense than having 3 separate Persons, which are not called separate beings or gods but really are, but evidently, this is heresy.

A Jew would explain it thusly: God is revealed in he Hebrew bible as a burning bush, an evil spirit from the Lord, and as a lying spirit from the Lord. Do we make a "trinity" out of that? God forbid, says the Jew.

Technically the trinity says that the son and spirit were created anyway. They made not use the word "created" but it's the same idea. The Nicean creed even says that at one point, the son was not a separate being, same with the spirit... but were BROUGHT FORTH by the Father. How could God have not been a separate being, yet now suddenly is, is absurd.

The Creed specifically says the Son is "begotten, not made". What the Creed means by this is that the generation of the Son is not an act of the Father bringing into existence something that had heretofore not existed; but that the Father brings forth and shares into His Son's eternal nature and being. The Son is of the Father, in the Father, from the Father; not in a temporal sense, but as an eternal and ever-present reality.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[enprever]

The Creed specifically says the Son is "begotten, not made". What the Creed means by this is that the generation of the Son is not an act of the Father bringing into existence something that had heretofore not existed; but that the Father brings forth and shares into His Son's eternal nature and being. The Son is of the Father, in the Father, from the Father; not in a temporal sense, but as an eternal and ever-present reality.

-CryptoLutheran

Ok, let me ask it this way - Was there ever a moment in time (or eternity, if you like) that the son did not exist as a separate person from the Father? (For instance, he was inside the Father, or existed as a thought in the mind of the Father, but not as an entirely separate and different aspect of God)?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Ok, let me ask it this way - Was there ever a moment in time (or eternity, if you like) that the son did not exist as a separate person from the Father? (For instance, he was inside the Father, or existed as a thought in the mind of the Father, but not as an entirely separate and different aspect of God)?

The Son is always distinct (but not separate) from the Father since He is the Son, not the Father.

The Son has always been (and therefore always is), because He is eternal and true God. He is what His Father is and receives His eternity, deity, and everything from Him. That is what we mean when we say He is homoousios (consubstantial) with the Father, and say "Light from Light" and "God of God".

The Light of Light phrase refers to the notion that the sun has always existed with its light, that there has never been a time when the sun was not shining and giving off light. Thus as long as there has been a sun in the heavens, it has been shining and giving off light. In the same way as long as the Father has existed, He has had a Son. The Father has never been without His Son, and if the Father is without beginning, then likewise His Son is without beginning; and hence the statement in the original Creed of 325, "There was never a time when the Son was not."

The Son is always in the Father. He is always from the Father. He is always begotten. The Son was not begotten in time, but is eternally generated/begotten. This is outside of time. The Son is begotten of the Father now, in the eternal present of God who is timeless and beyond time.

The Son is distinct from the Father, not separate. The Son is not an aspect of God, nor a part of God, He is God--whole and entirely. He is entirely and totally God because the Father is entirely and totally God. The Son is not the Father because He is the Son, there is actual relationship, fellowship, communion between Father and Son. This is part of the interior or ontological life of the God; the communion, the sharing, the interpenetration or perichoresis of the Three Hypostases.

And yes, the words "distinct" and "separate" are important and not just a matter of semantics, separate would indicate that they are apart (they are never apart) whereas distinct speaks of them not being identical in their fundamental personhood (e.g. the Son is always the Son, never Father and never Holy Spirit).

Additionally, the term "being" is also only used in respect to the nature of God because there is only one God. There is only one Life, one Quintessential Reality; God is a single, undivided, inseparate, non-partitioned thing. Being describes the most basic and fundamental concept of existence; there is only one "kind" or "type" of this existence which we call God, and it is the Ground of Being, Being-as-being. Again, this isn't simply a matter of petty semantics, but is emphasizing the importance of language so as to not confuse nor confound. It is very specific so as to communicate the appropriate understanding.

Sloppy theological articulation is, I think, one of the chief causes of theological illiteracy among Christians today, and it keeps getting repeated. It's one of the reasons why I will nitpick the heck out of something. I believe it's important that something as easily misunderstood like the Trinity should be explained rightly.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[enprever]

The Son is always distinct (but not separate) from the Father since He is the Son, not the Father.

The Son has always been (and therefore always is), because He is eternal and true God. He is what His Father is and receives His eternity, deity, and everything from Him. That is what we mean when we say He is homoousios (consubstantial) with the Father, and say "Light from Light" and "God of God".

The Light of Light phrase refers to the notion that the sun has always existed with its light, that there has never been a time when the sun was not shining and giving off light. Thus as long as there has been a sun in the heavens, it has been shining and giving off light. In the same way as long as the Father has existed, He has had a Son. The Father has never been without His Son, and if the Father is without beginning, then likewise His Son is without beginning; and hence the statement in the original Creed of 325, "There was never a time when the Son was not."

The Son is always in the Father. He is always from the Father. He is always begotten. The Son was not begotten in time, but is eternally generated/begotten. This is outside of time. The Son is begotten of the Father now, in the eternal present of God who is timeless and beyond time.

The Son is distinct from the Father, not separate. The Son is not an aspect of God, nor a part of God, He is God--whole and entirely. He is entirely and totally God because the Father is entirely and totally God. The Son is not the Father because He is the Son, there is actual relationship, fellowship, communion between Father and Son. This is part of the interior or ontological life of the God; the communion, the sharing, the interpenetration or perichoresis of the Three Hypostases.

And yes, the words "distinct" and "separate" are important and not just a matter of semantics, separate would indicate that they are apart (they are never apart) whereas distinct speaks of them not being identical in their fundamental personhood (e.g. the Son is always the Son, never Father and never Holy Spirit).

Additionally, the term "being" is also only used in respect to the nature of God because there is only one God. There is only one Life, one Quintessential Reality; God is a single, undivided, inseparate, non-partitioned thing. Being describes the most basic and fundamental concept of existence; there is only one "kind" or "type" of this existence which we call God, and it is the Ground of Being, Being-as-being. Again, this isn't simply a matter of petty semantics, but is emphasizing the importance of language so as to not confuse nor confound. It is very specific so as to communicate the appropriate understanding.

Sloppy theological articulation is, I think, one of the chief causes of theological illiteracy among Christians today, and it keeps getting repeated. It's one of the reasons why I will nitpick the heck out of something. I believe it's important that something as easily misunderstood like the Trinity should be explained rightly.

-CryptoLutheran

I think Christians need to drop the term "Persons" because what you described does not sound like three persons or people. I've heard some say that persons is more like our word "persona" (or even masks) but if that is true, that sounds more like modalism than tri-theism.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I think Christians need to drop the term "Persons" because what you described does not sound like three persons or people. I've heard some say that persons is more like our word "persona" (or even masks) but if that is true, that sounds more like modalism than tri-theism.

Firstly, "tri-theism" is just a heterodox as modalism as it would indicate belief in three gods, rather than one God. Trinitarianism is strict monotheism.

Secondly, the problem of the word "person" goes back to antiquity. When Greek-speaking theologians used the word "hypostasis" the Western, Latin-speaking theologians rendered it as the Latin "persona" from which we Anglophones use the word "person". The use of the Latin "persona" was troublesome for exactly the reason you mention, which is why Latin theologians had to carefully define "persona" as corresponding to the Greek "hypostasis". "Hypostasis" doesn't mean "person" or "persona", not really, but rather addresses a fundamental reality of a thing, in this sense it speaks of (for example) the Father's Father-ness.

You will note that I have a tendency to use the word hypostasis and hypostases (the plural form) rather than "person" and "persons". That's because I think the word "person" carries entirely too much baggage that confuses rather than helps understanding Trinitarian thought. The use of "hypostasis" is taken directly from the ancient Church Fathers and is clearly defined theologically and does not carry presuppositional baggage.

-CryptoLutheran