Understanding Trinity

[Uber Genius]

calling someone's view a heresy though doesn't help.


Coming from the perspective of a young person who goes to college and has to deal with...different views...atheism often enough. You don't persuade people by calling their view or (lets say they are Christian actually) there perspective a heresy that turns them off right away. I learned that early on. What you should do starting out is address the substance of the argument itself and convince them something is wrong first. Just starting out with dude your gay and that's a sin or whatever the issue may be is just yeah.


It's best that you respect what they are saying but show them why they are wrong...or why you believe they are wrong (who knows you could be wrong about something especially if they are a Christian also and it's just a perspective issue).

Apparently you didn't read the original exchange!

Do your research and then comment. You are disrespecting those who gently corrected the heretical view!

NO ONE WAS LABELED

NO AD HOMINEM ATTACKS WERE USED.

The person who was mistaken in there view (after all we all have false beliefs), refused to listen, attempt to understand, or do even 1 minute of research.

They instead recast the persons statement in order to shift the attention away from their false belief and gain emotional support. This is know as a strawman and an appeal to emotion. They are propagandistic tools.

Imagine going into a church and saying "Jesus isn't God."

Now someone responds, "That is not true and here is why," but instead of engaging the evidence the person, starts crying, and between all the sobs says, "You are labeling me and I feel embarrassed."

And the pastor, call him "Pastor Goat," tells his church we don't want to hurt his feelings so don't correct his view that Jesus isn't God!"

Do the research on the original conversation and don't get played by rhetorical flourish.

There are times when people label fallaciously.

This isn't one of the,.

Further if we apply your guidelines above consistently across the board no one could learn anything, they would be unable to get feedback about false beliefs for fear of offending them. This would hold true universally.

Incoherent.

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

Apparently you didn't read the original exchange!

Do your research and then comment. You are disrespecting those who gently corrected the heretical view!

NO ONE WAS LABELED

NO AD HOMINEM ATTACKS WERE USED.

The person who was mistaken in there view (after all we all have false beliefs), refused to listen, attempt to understand, or do even 1 minute of research.

They instead recast the persons statement in order to shift the attention away from their false belief and gain emotional support. This is know as a strawman and an appeal to emotion. They are propagandistic tools.

Imagine going into a church and saying "Jesus isn't God."

Now someone responds, "That is not true and here is why," but instead of engaging the evidence the person, starts crying, and between all the sobs says, "You are labeling me and I feel embarrassed."

And the pastor, call him "Pastor Goat," tells his church we don't want to hurt his feelings so don't correct his view that Jesus isn't God!"

Do the research on the original conversation and don't get played by rhetorical flourish.

There are times when people label fallaciously.

This isn't one of the,.

Further if we apply your guidelines above consistently across the board no one could learn anything, they would be unable to get feedback about false beliefs for fear of offending them. This would hold true universally.

Incoherent.

1. I read the original exchange isn't it the one that has heresy in the first sentence?


2. I never said you called him a heretic or used an ad hominem argument. IDK why you assume things. I said calling someone else's perspective or argument a heresy straight up is a problem so common sense would suggest I knew you were calling the argument that not the person.

3. I'm not saying the person who straight up said "3 gods" is correct...he should have provided scripture and waht not...however what you need to understand is no matter how ridiculous someone's argument is (his was bad) you don't just call it a heresy straight up...you show them why it's bad and then if it really is a sin...heresy....false doctrine etc. you declare that.


4. I would agree with your analogy if that's how you went about it...but based off your first response you just called his statement a heresy to start it off.

I'm not saying correct people if you believe they are wrong...we all have different beliefs on here after all so argumentation is natural.

But what i'm saying is at least know how to do it attack the substance first persuade the person....the bible says to what? Compel which means to persuade...I don't see in what world how starting off with "dude that's a heresy" does that.

 

[tampasteve]

calling someone's view a heresy though doesn't help.

To be clear, I called the analogy used a heresy, not the person, not their view as it was not known at the time. But even if I had known, there is nothing wrong with pointing out that a particular view is outside of the normal agreed Doctrine. Heresy does not have to have a bad connotation, it just means outside the orthodox view.

You don't persuade people by calling their view or (lets say they are Christian actually) there perspective a heresy that turns them off right away. I learned that early on. What you should do starting out is address the substance of the argument itself and convince them something is wrong first. Just starting out with dude your gay and that's a sin or whatever the issue may be is just yeah.

I was not trying to persuade anyone of anything, simply pointing out that the analogy used is called modalism and it is not orthodox Christianity. One does not have to convince someone of a fact when it should be self evident. The fact is that modalism is heresy, but I also was clear that I have no judgement on anyone that wants to hold other views of the Trinity, but modalism isn't orthodox Trinitarian.

Also, I did actually explain why it is modalism when I said (in the very first reply) "...Modalism. The man changes his identity based on what mode or version of himself is required at the given time."

It's best that you respect what they are saying but show them why they are wrong...or why you believe they are wrong (who knows you could be wrong about something especially if they are a Christian also and it's just a perspective issue).

I try to be respectful to people, and I feel that my posts actually were written in a respectful way. I went out of my way to say that I did not judge his beliefs or that he was wrong to hold them, just that they are not classic/orthdox Trinitarian - which is what this thread is asking about.

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

To be clear, I called the analogy used a heresy, not the person, not their view as it was not known at the time. But even if I had known, there is nothing wrong with pointing out that a particular view is outside of the normal agreed Doctrine. Heresy does not have to have a bad connotation, it just means outside the orthodox view.

I was not trying to persuade anyone of anything, simply pointing out that the analogy used is called modalism and it is not orthodox Christianity. One does not have to convince someone of a fact when it should be self evident. The fact is that modalism is heresy, but I also was clear that I have no judgement on anyone that wants to hold other views of the Trinity, but modalism isn't orthodox Trinitarian.

Also, I did actually explain why it is modalism when I said (in the very first reply) "...Modalism. The man changes his identity based on what mode or version of himself is required at the given time."


I try to be respectful to people, and I feel that my posts actually were written in a respectful way. I went out of my way to say that I did not judge his beliefs or that he was wrong to hold them, just that they are not classic/orthdox Trinitarian - which is what this thread is asking about.

Oh no this response was met for Uber someone else my bad I wasn’t responding to you

 

[tampasteve]

Oh no this response was met for Uber someone else my bad I wasn’t responding to you

Uber's post that you were replying back to was referencing my exchange from last night to another user back on page 1 in regards to modalism. Uber's defense was a bit overzealous perhaps, but appreciated.

 

[DominicBaptiste]

There are some theological errors here. It’s not good to try to simplify things by introducing incorrect theology, even if it is easier to understand. Some critical things missed are the resurrection - the core of the Christian faith and of salvation, the fact that Jesus is God - of one essence with the Father, and the part of about John having the Holy Spirit and “sending it back” certainly isn’t accurate. John wasn’t unique in this either.

We can identify the core concepts of Christianity, but we need to be very careful how we do that.

ETA: “Sending it back” as in John sending it back isn’t right. You are right that John and others were filled with the Holy Spirit before the death and resurrection of Christ, but they certainly didn’t send it back to God themselves.

The question was to explain the Trinity to a child, so I think you over thought it. I'm pretty sure that Jesus did send back his spirit to his followers on Pentecost, and I think I explained the concept well enough for a third grader. I think you need to be careful that don't overthink things. I don't see any errors. I guess I could have posted some catholic creed, but that wasn't really the question. Nice try smarty pants. "We" need to come back down to earth.

 

[All4Christ]

The question was to explain the Trinity to a child, so I think you over thought it. I'm pretty sure that Jesus did send back his spirit to his followers on Pentecost, and I think I explained the concept well enough for a third grader. I think you need to be careful that don't overthink things. I don't see any errors. I guess I could have posted some catholic creed, but that wasn't really the question. Nice try smarty pants. "We" need to come back down to earth.

There is nothing “smarty pants” about giving theology that is accurate. For the record, the Creed I gave is not just the Catholic Church’s Creed. I am not RCC or in communion with the Catholic Church. However, no matter how simplified we make it, it is important to at least capture the highlights. He resurrection is an important part of Christianity, even for a child.

 

[DominicBaptiste]

I grew up in the Methodist Church, and they use some of the creeds handed down from the Catholics, so I'm aware of the concept. The question wasn't to have a Council of Christian Forums to write a new creed. It was to give a simple explanation of the Trinity. Some of you people on this site with these Ambassador tags on your profile are the most condescending, unpleasant people to chat with.

 

[DominicBaptiste]

These are the two creeds that the United Methodist Church uses. I think "Christian Forums" uses the Nicene Creed. GOD BLESS

Apostles’ Creed
I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.

I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit
and born of the virgin Mary.
He suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended to hell.
The third day he rose again from the dead.
He ascended to heaven
and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty.
From there he will come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic* church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen.

The Nicene Creed
We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father;
through him all things were made.

For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary
and became truly human.

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
who with the Father and the Son
is worshiped and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.

We believe in one holy catholic* and apostolic church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

*universal church

 

[DominicBaptiste]

This is from EWTN. It's a Catholic media organization. This page explains the Mysteries on the Rosary. This part is about The Descent of the Holy Spirit.
EWTN-  The Holy Rosary

Jesus sends the Holy Spirit in the form of fiery tongues on His Apostles and disciples. (Acts 2:2-4)
The Holy Spirit appeared under the form of tongues of fire in order to fill the Apostles with truth and to prepare them to bear witness to Jesus. He also come to fill their hearts with love.
He is the Person of Love in the life of God. He is also like a breath, an aspiration of infinite Love, from which we draw the breath of life.
On the day of Pentecost the Divine Spirit communicated such an abundance of life to the whole Church that to symbolize it "there came a sound from heaven, as of a violent wind coming, and it filled the whole house where they (the Apostles) were sitting."
But it is also for us that the Holy Spirit has come, for the group in the Cenacle represented the whole Church. The Holy Spirit came to remain with the Church forever. This is the promise of Jesus Himself. He dwells in the Church permanently and unfailingly, performing in it without ceasing, His action of life-giving and sanctification. He establishes the Church infallibly in the truth. It is He Who makes the Church blossom forth with a marvelous supernatural fruitfulness, for He brings to life and full fruition in Virgins, Martyrs, Confessors, those heroic virtues which are one of the marks of true sanctity.

 

[All4Christ]

Just for the record, that was never my intention

 

[All4Christ]

I grew up in the Methodist Church, and they use some of the creeds handed down from the Catholics, so I'm aware of the concept. The question wasn't to have a Council of Christian Forums to write a new creed. It was to give a simple explanation of the Trinity. Some of you people on this site with these Ambassador tags on your profile are the most condescending, unpleasant people to chat with.

Okay, I needed to stop before writing more, as I am headed to the airport. If I was abrupt or sounded condescending, I apologize. I was hurrying out the door, so I may have phrased it in a way that did not sound considerate.

That said, while I try to be kind to everyone, I do believe it is critical to be authentic to our faith and theology, even when simplifying it for children. That’s the main point I was trying to convey.

ETA: Being called “smarty pants” doesn’t make it easy to not be defensive. Please consider that as well.

 

[DominicBaptiste]

Okay, I needed to stop before writing more, as I am headed to the airport. If I was abrupt or sounded condescending, I apologize. I was hurrying out the door, so I may have phrased it in a way that did not sound considerate.

That said, while I try to be kind to everyone, I do believe it is critical to be authentic to our faith and theology, even when simplifying it for children. That’s the main point I was trying to convey.

ETA: Being called “smarty pants” doesn’t make it easy to not be defensive. Please consider that as well.

I said Jesus died on the cross and went to Heaven in my first post, so I'm not sure why you said I didn't mention the Resurrection. By the way, Vladimir the Great is one of my 33rd great grandfathers, and his baptism is credited with the Christianization of the Kievan Rus'. The Rus' princes married into the Bohemian, Polish, Danish, then Scottish nobility, and I am descended from at least one Scottish noble who was banished to the British Colonies in what's now the USA after the Battle of Worcester in the English Civil War. That's the only connection I have to your church tradition, but I thought it was interesting. Christianization of Kievan Rus' - Wikipedia

 

[DominicBaptiste]

I guess I skipped over the part that happened after he rose from the tomb but before going to heaven. I don't remember all the details, but I have read the four Gospels.

Matthew 28:1-10 KJV
1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre. 2 And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it. 3 His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow: 4 And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men. 5 And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. 6 He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. 7 And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you. 8 And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word. 9 And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him. 10 Then said Jesus unto them, Be not afraid: go tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me.

 

[dreadnought]

You are representing an early second century heresy known as modalism.

Tampasteve gently pointed that out above and you apparently refused to do even 1 minute of research.

Modalism is false and the early church fathers argued from the scriptural evidence to make their point.

Prophecies about the father sending a messiah are all representing the Father sending another (not himself or himself playing another role).

Who is Jesus praying to all the time, himself? Is he scizophrenic?

Jesus teaches about the roles and they overlap, Jesus sends the HS at Pentecost he doesn't send himself.

These are a mere fraction of arguments the antenicene church fathers used to determine modalism as heretical.

For more info: look up sebelianism or modalistic monarchiasm occurred circa first 1/4 of the 3rd century CE

No, there is only one God.

 

[dreadnought]

Why continue to recast what other people are saying (putting words in their mouths) in order to appeal to people's emotions. This is a rhetorical trick and not an attempt to understand or converse on your part.

Stop the propaganda and identity politics please and just engage the Biblical and historical data in at conversation that seeks to gain understanding not demonize people trying to help you.

Like I say, there is only one God.

 

[Greg Merrill]

Below is a diagram that I use to explain the Trinity. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all God, and make up God, but they are one God in three persons, and the Father is not the Son or the Holy Spirit, and the Son is not the Father or the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is not the Father or the Son, and vice versa to all three.

Diagram Of Trinity

• Greg Merrill
• May 6, 2017
• 4

This is my favorite way of illustrating the doctrine of the Trinity of God.

 

[Doug Melven]

The globe and triangle analogies don’t work, since they are three components making up a whole (partialism).

The OP was wanting an explanation for a child. And I did say that any analogy would be imperfect.
You go much to far in demanding that all of the details be correct. Remember this explanation is for a child.
To properly explain the Trinity would require a very large book with very fine print. It is very important to extend grace in this instance instead of getting caught up in the details.

Trinity is a tough one to understand. I like to use water as an example, that seems to work most times. Water can take form as a liquid, gas or solid, but it's all still water. Just focus on the heart of the matter rather than the details. Jesus was about the principles, the pharisees were about the details.

I disagree with the analogy, but that is my opinion.
And I love the part in bold.

 

[All4Christ]

I said Jesus died on the cross and went to Heaven in my first post, so I'm not sure why you said I didn't mention the Resurrection. By the way, Vladimir the Great is one of my 33rd great grandfathers, and his baptism is credited with the Christianization of the Kievan Rus'. The Rus' princes married into the Bohemian, Polish, Danish, then Scottish nobility, and I am descended from at least one Scottish noble who was banished to the British Colonies in what's now the USA after the Battle of Worcester in the English Civil War. That's the only connection I have to your church tradition, but I thought it was interesting. Christianization of Kievan Rus' - Wikipedia

True, you did say “went to heaven”. I guess my contention is that all Christians will go to Heaven and be resurrected, but He physically resurrected from the tomb at that time. Be that as it may, I don’t want to get stuck on it I think we both understand what happened then, and I’m sure you would talk to your children in more details about that, especially considering Easter is coming up.

Very cool about Vladimir the Great! That’s great to know your heritage back that far. I’ve gotten it back to the 15th century with my family (Western European), but my husband’s is particularly difficult to research since they are from the Carpatho-Rusyn region. Thanks for sharing!

 

[All4Christ]

I guess I skipped over the part that happened after he rose from the tomb but before going to heaven. I don't remember all the details, but I have read the four Gospels.

Matthew 28:1-10 KJV
1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre. 2 And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it. 3 His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow: 4 And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men. 5 And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. 6 He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. 7 And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you. 8 And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word. 9 And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him. 10 Then said Jesus unto them, Be not afraid: go tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me.

Just saw this