What do you mean by "Trinity"?

[Erose]

The best explanation for the Trinity is found in the Athenasian creed. When trying to come up with analogies, it is easy to fall into a heresy.

I agree. There isn't a single analogy that works in explaining the Holy Trinity. Everyone I have heard alway leads to some form of heresy or another. Me personally I stay away from them altogether when it comes to this subject.

Love the video!

 

[Hoghead1]

I agree. There isn't a single analogy that works in explaining the Holy Trinity. Everyone I have heard alway leads to some form of heresy or another. Me personally I stay away from them altogether when it comes to this subject.

Love the video!

Then how do you describe the Trinity? Do you just say you believe in the Trinity and leave it go at that, giving the trinity no real content and meaning? What?

 

[Hoghead1]

Well one thing this thread has taught me is that if someone claims to be Trinitarian on this forum, there is a good chance he/she isn't.

By who and what standards are you determining whether one is truly Trinitarian or not?

 

[Hoghead1]

And I have shown you from the very same article that Thomas says that God is present also by His PRESENCE and ESSENCE as well which you continue to ignore.

No, I definitely did not ignore that. I am simply pointing out you are overlooking some qualifiers here. For example, the fact he uses the analogy of a prince ruling from afar, to describe God. If anyone is overlooking material here, I is you, who continually refuse to address the passages I have specified.

 

[Hoghead1]

St. Thomas taught if God is infinite it would be impossible to conceive of reality where this God is not, other wise there would be limits to His existence. He is in all-things. To say God is everywhere, is a nice pious statement but for St. Thomas, it means God is present in all conceivable ways by His essence, by His pure act -of -being.

God is in all things by His power, exercising His absolute rule in all things.

God is in all things by His presence, as perfectly knowing all things and disposing them by His providence.

God is in all things by His essence as creator and preserver.

St. Thomas Aquinas


AMDG

I am aware he said that. But if you have been reading my posts, you will not that he made a number of other claims that put in place some strong qualifiers here.

 

[Hoghead1]

The Trinity is indicated in the first three verses of Genesis chapter 1. Verse 1 on God, 2 on the Holy Spirit and 3 on the Son as light.

Sorry, but I can't agree with that at all. I find you are reading far too much into the Genesis account. If that were in fact true, then "the people of the Book," the Jews, would have readily accepted Christ.

 

[Hoghead1]

Their understanding is definitely different from Judaism. The word 'gods' is used Psalms also.

Was it?

 

[Hoghead1]

I had read that book long back borrowed from a theological college library. I don't remember the details regarding translation and publisher.

Well, until you do present your sources, I'm going to rule your claim as totally bogus.

 

[Hoghead1]

Good point. All language has indeed been confused.

No, no. it's not a matter of confusion here. It's simply a matter that language changes over the years. That's why, for example, there's a difference of about 20,000 changers between our KJV and the 1611KJV.

 

[Erose]

By who and what standards are you determining whether one is truly Trinitarian or not?

By the definition declared by the Church.

 

[Erose]

Then how do you describe the Trinity? Do you just say you believe in the Trinity and leave it go at that, giving the trinity no real content and meaning? What?

I've already given that, but how I believe the Trinity to be is found in the Athanasian Creed, and what has been declared in the Ecumenical Councils.

 

[Erose]

No, I definitely did not ignore that. I am simply pointing out you are overlooking some qualifiers here. For example, the fact he uses the analogy of a prince ruling from afar, to describe God. If anyone is overlooking material here, I is you, who continually refuse to address the passages I have specified.

The prince ruling his kingdom is an analogy about God being present by His POWER. Afterwards Thomas gives two more qualifiers, I.e His Presence and Essence. Which aren't referred to by the analogy of the prince.

 

[Hoghead1]

The prince ruling his kingdom is an analogy about God being present by His POWER. Afterwards Thomas gives two more qualifiers, I.e His Presence and Essence. Which aren't referred to by the analogy of the prince.

Y3es, that's what I've been telling you. God's power is present, not God.

 

[Hoghead1]

I've already given that, but how I believe the Trinity to be is found in the Athanasian Creed, and what has been declared in the Ecumenical Councils.

So did they tell you that you should posit three subjectivities within the Godhead? Did they tell you to be tritheistic?

 

[ScottA]

My point could not be any more simple, the religion of Judaism did not have a theology wherein God had a Son who was also God. The concept of a Jewish Messiah, based on parts and pieces of scripture such as you provided, lead to the anticipation of a kind of human priest/prophet/king figure who would take up David's seat, fight off Israel's oppressors and establish an earthly kingdom. But the Son of God, who incarnate within a religion with such a distorted concept of the function and identity of the anticipated deliverer, had no choice but to work with (keep in touch with) their erroneous ideas and henceforth stretch their minds as far as he could into the truth before returning to his real throne on high.

I just quoted a verse "wherein God had a Son who was also God."

...So, then...is your being "any more simple" mean that you are claiming that the scriptures are not the truth?

 

[Erose]

Y3es, that's what I've been telling you. God's power is present, not God.

And His Presence and Essence.

 

[Erose]

So did they tell you that you should posit three subjectivities within the Godhead? Did they tell you to be tritheistic?

No, of which I'm not. What part of BEING are you confused about? One BEING, three PERSONS. Tritheism is THREE BEINGS that make up THREE PERSONS. See the difference?

As has already been pointed out a Divine Person is not identical to a human person. There is a difference. Primarily I believe with the very fact that a human person and human being are the exact same thing. Thus when you have three human persons you also have three human beings. If this was true with Divine persons then yes you would have a point. But that isn't the case. Even though the Father is a divine being, the Son is a divine being, and the Holy Spirit is a divine being, there isn't three beings, but one Being. So when you ask the question what God is, He is One. When you ask the question who God is, there are three.

Modalism and Tritheism, are both heresies, and neither idea is reconcilable with the teachings of the councils. I get it that you have more and more educated theologians, falling away from orthodoxy. I don't doubt you on this. But it doesn't make them anywhere near correct.

If you want to believe in modalism, that is your perogative. Me? I'm sticking with orthodoxy.

 

[Hoghead1]

No, of which I'm not. What part of BEING are you confused about? One BEING, three PERSONS. Tritheism is THREE BEINGS that make up THREE PERSONS. See the difference?

As has already been pointed out a Divine Person is not identical to a human person. There is a difference. Primarily I believe with the very fact that a human person and human being are the exact same thing. Thus when you have three human persons you also have three human beings. If this was true with Divine persons then yes you would have a point. But that isn't the case. Even though the Father is a divine being, the Son is a divine being, and the Holy Spirit is a divine being, there isn't three beings, but one Being. So when you ask the question what God is, He is One. When you ask the question who God is, there are three.

Modalism and Tritheism, are both heresies, and neither idea is reconcilable with the teachings of the councils. I get it that you have more and more educated theologians, falling away from orthodoxy. I don't doubt you on this. But it doesn't make them anywhere near correct.

If you want to believe in modalism, that is your perogative. Me? I'm sticking with orthodoxy.

Your argument is irrational and completely overlooks that the Trinitarian concept of "person" was very much different from what we have today. In addition, you are overlooking the fact that historically the term "person" came into usage because the Greek translated into Latin, and also English would be stating one essence, three substances, or vice versa. Now certainly substances are beings. Essentially what you have argued is that God is a cosmic committee of three personalities. That is tritheism to the hilt. The oneness of God is collapsed into the fact there there is but one cosmic committee of three. Three humans also have the same "being." We are all human beings. Yet three persons working in harmony are still three persons. Wotan is God, Flicka is God, Friea is God. These are all beings who possess godhood. Yet we easily recognize this Norse faith is polytheistic.

 

[Hoghead1]

And His Presence and Essence.

They are there by proxy, the are proleptically present via God's power and crated grace.

 

[Hoghead1]

By the definition declared by the Church.

Well, that presents two problems. One is how well you understand what the church presented. Given your posts, I have serious reservations about that. The other is that it assumes the church is inerrant and beyond question in what it has to say. That might fly in Catholicism, but certainly not with me and other Protestants here, not to mention those of us who are free thinkers and like to question.