your opinion: The Trinity

[bslaughlin]

I'm just curious.

Does the doctrine of the trinity make sense to anybody? and if it does how and why?

 

[Simon_Templar]

Depends on what you mean by "make sense".

No one fully understands the Trinity. It is a paradox, which means its something which appears contradictory but is true.

Paradox is frequently what happens when we come to things that are beyond our experience and beyond our understanding.

However, the Trinity makes a great deal of sense in the context of Christianity. In fact, it is the central doctrine of Christianity that really makes sense of everything else. Without it Christianity doesn't make sense.

The Trinity is also the only idea which makes sense of a some theological and philosophical problems that have plagued mankind in general for most of recorded history.

There are illustrations that people use from time to time to explain the Trinity. Some are better than others but none of them are completely perfect.

St. Patrick famously used a shamrock to demonstrate the idea of the Trinity to the Irish. The whole plant represents God, and God is one, each of the leaves (there are three) represents a person of the Godhead, so one is the Father, one is the Son, and one is the Spirit. Its not one leaf playing three roles, and its not three different plants. The leaves are all joined in one plant, and yet they are also distinct.
Thats a pretty good illustration of the Trinity.

Another one I came up with (I may not be the first) was based on the idea that God describes himself as fire in the Bible on a few occasions.

God the Father is the flame, God the Son is the light which emanates from the flame, and God the Holy Spirit is the heat which emanates from the flame. They are all one in the fire, but they are also distinct in a sense as well.

A common example which is actually incorrect is the use of the states of water.. that it can be liquid, steam, or ice... This illustration is actually modalist, because steam and ice are just water playing different roles, so its technically not a Trinity.

 

[He put me back together]

I don't think you're going to receive a presentable set of opinions here, due to the fact that no one is allowed to say that trinity doctrine doesn't make sense here.

 

[MrBojangles]

You have two logical choices which will make sense.
1. All three are separate individuals. Three Gods in one godhead, or
2. All three are merely manifestations of one individual God. One God.

Personally, I think the "we cannot understand" explanation is not an option. If you cannot understand it, then how do you communicate that which cannot be understood? How did you learn it to start with. Things which cannot be understood by definition cannot be learned.
Cow cannot fly. We can say cows fly.. but just because we can put those non-sensical words together into a sentence does not make it true. Magical thinking.

Something that cannot be understood cannot be framed in words.
How does one communicate that which cannot be framed in words?
What exactly is being believed? We cannot say.
Here the athiests are correct..."magical thinking"

Faith is believing in that which cannot be seen or is not yet in existance.
Faith is not believing in that which cannot be understood.
We are commanded to understand.

 

[JEBrady]

Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons. In each is the fullness of the godhead. God is one. These are details about the nature of the godhead that we see in the scriptures. Three isn’t one, though- that’s the rub.

The thing is, the nature of God might just be a little beyond us right now. Scripture says His ways are past finding out and His thoughts so far above ours as heaven is above earth, so when some of the details that are revealed to us prove this out, we have a choice to make. We can accept it by faith and believe the word of God, or we can opt to favor our puny intellect by denying some part of the revealed nature of God to ease our own minds.

To truly understand God takes more than logic. It takes revelation. There will be a day when we will know even as we are known. Today, though, we see an enigma in a mirror. I’m reconciled to the fact that I’m just not going to have an explanation for every spiritual thing in this life.

 

[Simon_Templar]

You have two logical choices which will make sense.
1. All three are separate individuals. Three Gods in one godhead, or
2. All three are merely manifestations of one individual God. One God.

Personally, I think the "we cannot understand" explanation is not an option. If you cannot understand it, then how do you communicate that which cannot be understood? How did you learn it to start with. Things which cannot be understood by definition cannot be learned.
Cow cannot fly. We can say cows fly.. but just because we can put those non-sensical words together into a sentence does not make it true. Magical thinking.

Something that cannot be understood cannot be framed in words.
How does one communicate that which cannot be framed in words?
What exactly is being believed? We cannot say.
Here the athiests are correct..."magical thinking"

Faith is believing in that which cannot be seen or is not yet in existance.
Faith is not believing in that which cannot be understood.
We are commanded to understand.

You must believe in a very small God then.

I realize this is a somewhat trite response, but it expresses the reality that if God must fit in your mind (or mine) then he is very small indeed. I do not see that as reconcilable with the God described in the bible.

 

[bslaughlin]

You must believe in a very small God then.

I realize this is a somewhat trite response, but it expresses the reality that if God must fit in your mind (or mine) then he is very small indeed. I do not see that as reconcilable with the God described in the bible.

I do not think that he was trying to make God smaller than He is because our whole universe can not contain him.

I think that you have to have logic in religion because without it scripture could not be comprehended. I take a lot of comfort in this verse...
Isaiah 1:18a "Come now, let us reason together,"
says the LORD. "

 

[MrBojangles]

You must believe in a very small God then.

I realize this is a somewhat trite response, but it expresses the reality that if God must fit in your mind (or mine) then he is very small indeed. I do not see that as reconcilable with the God described in the bible.

I would have to ask what is it about God that is too big to understand, and what does size have to do with comprehension? I do not know that there is anything about the nature of the knowledge about God that would place it beyond our ability to understand. Everything we have been shown about God makes perfect sense. There are things we do NOT know simply because they are a mystery and these are things that "belong to God." But those things that have been revealed belong to us, are very clear, and are within the ability of a normal person to comprehend and relate to others.
I suppose I could make up something about God... something unprovable, and then insist anyone who opposed it believed in a small God. But that is not proof of anything other than my own desperation to prove something that has no merit. That is just more magical thinking. Lets just go all the way and insist that when it comes to God, every imaginable thing is true - that would put Him WAY beyond our ability to understand Him and surely the vastness of that unknowableness must make it all true. As if the less we know about something the larger it must be, and the more we know about something somehow makes it smaller. (?)
So suggesting that something about the nature of God is not true in no way diminishes His size. There are more things not true about God than there are true.

 

[Yekcidmij]

You have two logical choices which will make sense.
1. All three are separate individuals. Three Gods in one godhead, or
2. All three are merely manifestations of one individual God. One God.

And I don't accept that those are the only 2 options. I would probably probe your definition of "individuals" since such a term is not in Trinitarian expressions which normall use terms like "being", "nature", "essence", "substance", "person", and "subsistance". So, especially when using different terms that turn out to play a key role in understanding, it's important to define your terms.

Also, how much information do you think is required for us to know about God and how comprehended must that information be? Are we required to understand every in and out of God? Are we required to know all about His methods? Are we required to have an all encompassing understanding of every last aspect of Him? Of course, for us finite creatures, such things are definitionally limited and thus logically impossible. I am not omniscient, so it doesn't surprise me in the least bit if I don't know or understand every last thing in the universe, much less about things beyond space and time. So, I don't think understanding is always necessary for belief. For example, when I was in first or second grade, like most people I began to learn arithmetic. I was surely warranted in believing it and even using it, though I certainly how no comprehension of the theorems and axioms that underlie the entire system itself (I still don't and neither do you unless you're have advanced math degrees or have way too much time on your hands). By way of analogy, I don't think one is required to have exaustive understanding or comprehension of God before one can believe. I don't think one has to have exaustive understanding and comprehensions of things like the hypostatic union, Trinity, God's free choices, the mechanics of God's creation, etc. before one can believe in such things. The same sort of principles could be applied to belief in God's existence: one doesn't have to know or formulate advanced philosophical arguments to prove God's existence before belief in Him can be held. If someone finds the Trinity mysterious, that doesn't mean the belief they hold is false; it simply means they don't fully understand it. There's nothing wrong with admiting limitations of knowledge. Most people work full time jobs and have families to provide for, which I think is pretty high on God's agenda of things for us to do, so they may not be able to sit around and try to come to grips with the Trinity. This is understandable, and I think we should be charitable with people when they admit to not completely understanding things rather than just take that lack of understanding as evidence that their belief is false (since it logically doesn't imply that anyway too).

That being said, Trinitarian expressions have been given through history, most notably in the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds. Since the Athanasian Creed is more explicit and detailed, but less familiar to most people I will post it. This is a very traditional Trinitarian expression.

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled; without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.

And the Catholic Faith is this:
That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;
Neither confounding the Persons; nor dividing the Essence.
For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost.
But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal.
Such as the Father is; such is the Son; and such is the Holy Ghost.
The Father uncreated; the Son uncreated; and the Holy Ghost uncreated.
The Father unlimited; the Son unlimited; and the Holy Ghost unlimited.
The Father eternal; the Son eternal; and the Holy Ghost eternal.
And yet they are not three eternals; but one eternal.
As also there are not three uncreated; nor three infinites, but one uncreated; and one infinite.
So likewise the Father is Almighty; the Son Almighty; and the Holy Ghost Almighty.
And yet they are not three Almighties; but one Almighty.
So the Father is God; the Son is God; and the Holy Ghost is God.
And yet they are not three Gods; but one God.
So likewise the Father is Lord; the Son Lord; and the Holy Ghost Lord.
And yet not three Lords; but one Lord.

For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity; to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord; So are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion; to say, There are three Gods, or three Lords.
The Father is made of none; neither created, nor begotten.
The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created; but begotten.
The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten; but proceeding.
So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts.
And in this Trinity none is before, or after another; none is greater, or less than another. But the whole three Persons are coeternal, and coequal.
So that in all things, as aforesaid; the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshipped.
He therefore that will be saved, let him thus think of the Trinity.

Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation; that he also believe faithfully the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess;
that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man;
God, of the Essence of the Father;
begotten before the worlds;
and Man, of the Essence of his Mother, born in the world.
Perfect God; and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.
Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood.
Who although he is God and Man; yet he is not two, but one Christ.
One; not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh; but by assumption of the Manhood into God.
One altogether; not by confusion of Essence; but by unity of Person.
For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man; so God and Man is one Christ;

Who suffered for our salvation; descended into hell; rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into heaven, he sitteth on the right hand of the God the Father Almighty, from whence he will come to judge the quick and the dead. At whose coming all men will rise again with their bodies; And shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire. This is the Catholic Faith; which except a man believe truly and firmly, he cannot be saved.

After reading the creed, note that Athanasias was very careful to define his terms. I think we can generalize things as follows:

Essential property: A property 'x' is essential to some object 'O' if and only if x must necessarily be held O in any world where O exists.

Contingent property: A property 'c' is contingent to some object 'O' if and only if O has c in some possible world W1 and has not-c in some possible world W2. (c is not held by O necessarily)

Essence: An Essence 'E' is an essence of some object 'O' if and only if E is held essentially by O in any world where O exists, and everything distinct from O has not-E essentially.

Leibniz's Law: Two objects O1 and O2 are the same object (are identical) if and only if everything that is true about one is also true about the other.

When talking about God, Athanasias identifies several essential properties that make up a set that I will collectively refer to as an essence. There is: eternal, unlimited, infinite, Almighty, and Lord. I take it that Athansias would agree that omnipotence and omniscience are entailed in those concepts. What Athanasias is pointing out is that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit each have the properties of God's essence, but are not identical to each other. There are some contingent properties in the mix.

Take for example the property of omnipotence. By the definition I think I'm getting from Athanasias, if omnipotence is a property that is an essence of God, then it's a property that He will have necessarily and everything that is distinct from God will have it's compliment, not-omnipotent, necessarily. Of course, Christians have traditionally believed that Jesus has been given and has all power and authority, which means He shares in this essence of God.

But Jesus is distinct from the Father because there are some properties that distinguish the two. Jesus has the property of being "born of the Virgin Mary" while neither the Father nor the Holy Spirit have this property. By Leibniz's Law, it's clear that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinguishable, yet by the definitions of essence and essential property all three share in the same essence.

The Athanasian Creed does not imply a logical contradiction since the way in which the Father, Son, and Spirit are "one" is not the same way in which they are "three". However hard or difficult to believe or understand, it's certainly believable and understandable. Furthermore, Athanasias didn't develop this out of thin air either. He took traditions stretching through church history, through figures such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Ignatius, and Tertullian, and stretching back to and through the New Testament itself. Granted, the wording that Athanasias uses is not identical wording to that of the New Testament, but the concepts taught are the same.

 

[MrBojangles]

And I ...

Thanks Yekci... I would like to explore some of what you said. Good post.
I will get back to you shortly.

 

[MrBojangles]

I don't think you're going to receive a presentable set of opinions here, due to the fact that no one is allowed to say that trinity doctrine doesn't make sense here.

I really do not think that is what the rule says. It says you have to acknowledge the trinity to be a Christian. We can talk about what "trinity" means till our ears and lips fall off. It is just that the teaching is so vague that it leaves too much up to interpretation. In the US unclear laws are usually challenged and get thrown out precisely because they can made to mean anything and nothing. That is kind of where some of us are regarding the trinity. Essentially people say "you must believe in this collection of non-scenical words" or they say "we believe in this thing that we admit nobody understands... and you have to believe it and not understand it too!"

Unacceptable.

BTW -
I believe The Father is God.
I believe Jesus is God.
I believe the Holy Spirit is God.

 

[MrBojangles]

And I don't accept that those are the only 2 options. I would probably probe your definition of "individuals" since such a term is not in Trinitarian expressions which normal use terms like "being", "nature", "essence", "substance", "person", and "subsistance". So, especially when using different terms that turn out to play a key role in understanding, it's important to define your terms.

You have stated the issue very well. When discussing the topic "trinity"... what indeed is an "individual?" Individual means one. I know of no usage that allows "individual" to mean anything but "one." An individual being is one being. 3 beings would be 3 individuals. To say three beings are one individual destroys the meaning of the words "one," "three," and "individual." To do so lapses into non-sensical sentences.
"The cow is a fish."
"The ball is square."
"1+1+1=1"
"Three separate individuals is (are?) one individual."

We can say that a thousand times, and the thousandth time we say it we will still be making a non-sensical statement. You would have to break left or break right. There is either one individual or there are three individuals. Take your pick.

So regardless of what term we use... they are all taken to mean "individual and separate from others of the same".


I realize there is a lot of switching back and forth and fudging of these terms. For instance in the creed you quoted:

"The Father eternal; the Son eternal; and the Holy Ghost eternal.
And yet they are not three eternals; but one eternal. "

Here they have substituted the word "person" or "being" with the abstract word "eternal" meaning "an eternal being." It still means the same thing. It is still referring to individual beings who are eternal. And then they make the statement:

"they are not three eternal (beings) but one eternal (being)"

Hiding behind this switching of words does not make it any less non-sensical. You cannot be three beings and yet be one being all at the same time. True, there are many things we do not know about God. But the things we DO know about Him, that is the things that He has shown us, are all true and they all make sense. Nothing He has said about Himself is non-sensical ("The cow is a fish." "The ball is square.").

The words "substance" and "essence" also.
We can say that we have three piles of sand, and then combine them into one pile of sand. But when we say the words "one" and "three" we are not talking about substance, we are talking about piles. There are three piles, not one. There is one substance, not three. So we should not confuse our substance with our divisions of the same substance. There is one substance, regardless of how many piles you divide it into. So is this what some advocates of the trinity are saying? Are they saying there are three piles of divine being? How could this be? God, being everywhere, is incapable of being divided. Is there a place in all creation that God does not exist? The Father the Son and the Holy Spirit all exist at the same time everywhere simultaneously. This being true, there cannot be three separate "piles" of the same "divine" substance. There are not three beings if they all occupy the same place (all of creation) at the same time (eternally). There is one being.


"... likewise the Father is Almighty; the Son Almighty; and the Holy Ghost Almighty.
And yet they are not three Almighties; but one Almighty.
So the Father is God; the Son is God; and the Holy Ghost is God.
And yet they are not three Gods; but one God.
So likewise the Father is Lord; the Son Lord; and the Holy Ghost Lord.
And yet not three Lords; but one Lord. "

Here we lapse into non-sensical speech at it's best (worst?)
Whenever you see the phrase "and yet" get ready for some illogic.

"...And yet they are not three Almighties; but one Almighty."
"...And yet they are not three Gods; but one God."
"...And yet not three Lords; but one Lord."

Again with the three is one. That is just a violation of the English language. Forget theology.

"The cow is a mammal, and yet it is a fish."

Before we use the word "mystery" here, let us state that by definition a "mystery" is knowledge that is hidden. A mystery is not when a known statement contradicts other known statements and/or that does not make sense.

We cannot say: "The cow is a mammal, and yet it is a fish" and then excuse our illogic by declaring it a mystery. We know what a cow is. We know what fish are. Cows are not cold blooded and they do not lay eggs. So a cow can never be a fish.

We can say there are three individual Gods or we can say there is one individual God. But we cannot say three individual Gods are one individual God, as they do here:

"So the Father is God; the Son is God; and the Holy Ghost is God.
And yet they are not three Gods; but (they are) one God."

 

[MrBojangles]

Also, how much information do you think is required for us to know about God and how comprehended must that information be? Are we required to understand every in and out of God? Are we required to know all about His methods? Are we required to have an all encompassing understanding of every last aspect of Him? Of course, for us finite creatures, such things are definitionally limited and thus logically impossible. I am not omniscient, so it doesn't surprise me in the least bit if I don't know or understand every last thing in the universe, much less about things beyond space and time.

We do not have to know everything about God. As stated, some things are mysteries (which only means unrevealed) and so we do not know them. But if they were shown to us, we could understand what was revealed. And those things that HAVE been revealed are all within our ability to understand. All knowledge can be broken down into it's fundamental or simplest parts. If we had access to ALL the knowledge of and about God in that (simplest) form... we could understand everything shown to us. There is no knowledge that by it's quality or nature prevents it from being understood. There is only one thing that prevents us from understanding any (and so every) individual truth...and that being it has not been revealed to us. So you are correct. We do not know everything only because not everything has been revealed. But the things that have been revealed are all within our grasp to comprehend. And we do not HAVE to know everything... in fact there is a very small set of truth that one needs to know to be saved. But if we are going to proclaim a thing be to true.. we should be able to logically support what we are saying. And what we are saying must be logical within the confines of its own knowledge. It is illegal to make up stuff, declare it to be truth, and then use a lack of knowledge to justify it!

The question arises... if what you are suggesting is true, and if what you are suggesting is in fact a mystery and outside of our knowledge.. then how did it come to you? How did we arrive at this information if it is not known? The argument turns in against itself when we say "we know this but we do not know it."

 

[MrBojangles]

For example, when I was in first or second grade, like most people I began to learn arithmetic. I was surely warranted in believing it and even using it, though I certainly how no comprehension of the theorems and axioms that underlie the entire system itself (I still don't and neither do you unless you're have advanced math degrees or have way too much time on your hands). By way of analogy, I don't think one is required to have exaustive understanding or comprehension of God before one can believe. I don't think one has to have exaustive understanding and comprehensions of things like the hypostatic union, Trinity, God's free choices, the mechanics of God's creation, etc. before one can believe in such things...

I think here we are continuing to mix the amount of knowledge with the availability of knowledge. We do not have all knowledge... but what knowledge we do have makes sense. As to your example of axioms and theorems. I would challenge that you in fact DID understand what you were learning... else you would have failed your grade. Theorems are used to go through the "proofs" in geometry. If you did not understand the axioms and theorems... you could not prove your postulates.

There is nothing inherent in the nature or quality of any piece of knowledge that renders it beyond your ability to perceive and understand it.

You do not have to have exaustive knowledge of math to understand any individual element of math. You do not have to have exaustive knowledge of God to understand individual elements of God. But if you DO present a postulate about God, you should be able to prove your postulate using the knowledge you possess. If someone postulates that 1+1+1=1, then they should be ready to prove it, if not to others then at least to themselves.

 

[MrBojangles]

I do not think that he was trying to make God smaller than He is because our whole universe can not contain him.

I think that you have to have logic in religion because without it scripture could not be comprehended. I take a lot of comfort in this verse...
Isaiah 1:18a "Come now, let us reason together,"
says the LORD. "

I think you touched upon a point I made earlier.
If the universe were filled with water, then how could we say there is room for more than one pond? It would all be the same pond. God is all in all. He is one. And His nature and being is within our ability to comprehend. Now imaginary descriptions of God are not within the ability of anyone to comprehend. The description "1+1+1=1" is not within our ability to comprehend. God does even comprehend that. He would mark it with a red checkmark.
He is not confusion, illogic, imagination, or error.

 

[bslaughlin]

this is such great discussion. I think so many times we don't think about each other's views because we are tooo busy shouting ours.
I have another question now. If the trinity is the solid truth about the Godhead why did it take hundreds of years to be established doctrine or dogma within the Christian faith? Did the apostles actually believe that there are three in one, or did they understand everything through a different point of view?

 

[Simon_Templar]

I do not think that he was trying to make God smaller than He is because our whole universe can not contain him.

I think that you have to have logic in religion because without it scripture could not be comprehended. I take a lot of comfort in this verse...
Isaiah 1:18a "Come now, let us reason together,"
says the LORD. "

Can your mind contain the entire universe?

I would say no. Maybe some people would say yes, but I would tend to think that means they merely don't understand nearly enough about the universe.
However, if your mind can't contain the universe, and the universe can't contain God.. how can you mind contain God?

I'm not at all arguing against logic. I believe logic is God given. It is no coincidence that the idea of Logos (which had pretty specific meaning at the time John used it) is used to refer to Jesus. When John referred to Jesus as the Logos of God, he was essentially saying (in the context of that time) that Jesus was the logical organizing principle of life and the universe. He was the reason behind everything that gave order to everything.

My point, simply stated, is that God is infinite, and we are not. If you must make God fit completely within the finite limits of human understanding then you must make God finite. At that point you have literally redefined who God is, and you have made him 'smaller'. You have, at that point, given God limits and made him finite. Specfically you have given God the limits of your mind. Thus in a sense you have remade God in your own image.

Christianity is full of paradox. The reason, the logic, for this is the fact that God is bigger than the limits of our experience. As a result, the truths about him can appear to us to be contradictory because they don't fit within our experience.

One of the paradoxes is that God, who is infinite, and incomprehensible, enables us to comprehend him.

The incarnation of Jesus Christ is a paradox. How can a man be both a man completely, and also completely God?

The very nature of God as eternal and infinite logically requires that there will be paradoxes.
On the other hand, the lack of paradox is a sure sign that a religion has been made up by the human mind.

Its like the old statement, truth is stranger than fiction. Fiction has to be crafted to be believable. It comes from the human mind so it has to fit within the limits of our mind. Truth, on the other hand simply is. It is not crafted to fit and thus it doesn't have to be 'believable' in the sense that it must 'seem' logical.

 

[Yekcidmij]

Individual means one. I know of no usage
that allows "individual" to mean anything but "one."

Well, now when discussion the Trinity we are back to asking "one in what sense", which I addressed in my last post.

An individual being is one being. 3 beings would be 3 individuals.

Now we are using different definitions. Please don't equivocate.

To say three beings are one individual destroys the meaning of the words "one," "three," and "individual."

Now you are equivocating. We are using different definitions; I supplied the definitions I'm using in my last post. I think Athanasias would agree with them since they are actually rather common philosophical terms (see Plantinga, "The Nature of Necessity")

"Three separate individuals is (are?) one individual."

Nobody but you has used this sort of definition.

"The Father eternal; the Son eternal; and the Holy Ghost eternal.
And yet they are not three eternals; but one eternal. "

Here they have substituted the word "person" or "being" with the abstract word "eternal" meaning "an eternal being." It still means the same thing. It is still referring to individual beings who are eternal. And then they make the statement:

Person and being have different connotations in philosophical discourse like the one offered here by Athanasias. Athanasias does not talk about 3 individual beings. Remember in the very first part of the Creed where PErsona and Essence are clearly being distinguised in what follows. This is something you are still not accounting for.

"they are not three eternal (beings) but one eternal (being)"

Hiding behind this switching of words does not make it any less non-sensical. You cannot be three beings and yet be one being all at the same time.

Again, Athanasias is not talking about 3 beings who are one being. This is you reading something into the creed. He clearly is making distinction between Person and Essence and states this very fact in the opening part of the creed. You must read and consider the whole creed and not isolate parts of it and forgetting other parts.

Again with the three is one. That is just a violation of the English language. Forget theology.

The creed is written in Latin, not English.

We can say there are three individual Gods or we can say there is one individual God. But we cannot say three individual Gods are one individual God, as they do here:

You have basically built a strawman in your post because you are using your own definitions and terms that you supplied, then you proceed to show how incoherent they are. You must use the terms and definitions that Athanasias, or the generalizations I made or else we just aren't talking about the same thing. Nobody uses the term "individuals", much less equates it to "being", even much less also equates it to "person", and even much much less takes God to be one indivdual and in the same sense 3 individals. This was all, fortunately, addressed in my last post.

 

[NorrinRadd]

...
A common example which is actually incorrect is the use of the states of water.. that it can be liquid, steam, or ice... This illustration is actually modalist, because steam and ice are just water playing different roles, so its technically not a Trinity.

It's probably not a terrible illustration if we stipulate that we're talking about conditions at the "triple point," where all three phases exist in equilibrium.

 

[Jedi.Kep]

I'm just curious.

Aren't we all?

Does the doctrine of the trinity make sense to anybody?

Yes.

and if it does how and why?

Apple pie.

Take a pie, make three cuts. You have three distinct pieces of pie, yet if you pulled the top crust off, you would still have one pie. The trinity is an easy one to figure out.