Trinitarians, please help me.

[Jeremiah Ames]

Christian trinitarians:
I would like to hear a thoughtful explanation of the Trinity without picking one or two bible verses and stretching them to fit into your mind’s view of this concept.

Also, please address my problem when answering.

My problem with the Trinity:
You separate god into 3 persons. Your doctrine specifically says the three persons are distinct.
To me, disinct means you draw a boundary around each, and describe the character and duties of each individually. Yes, a boundary, meaning there is a distinction between each.
Then you say the holy spirit comes to believers. Or he is sent by the father. How is it possible for this concept to make ANY tiny bit of logical sense? I ask this because you also claim that your god is omnipotent and omnipresent. Omnipresence means he is everywhere. That means the distinct person you call the father is everywhere. Everywhere means everywhere. There are no gaps. That would mean that the father is in me. That would mean that he does not have to send another person in his place. He is already here.
There is absolutely no logic to breaking the one God of the universe into 3 persons.

So, the rules are: no cherrypicked bible verses. No bible verses period. Just answer my problem in your own words. Like you were speaking to a small child. Consider me a small child.
Matthew 19:14. Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.
Think of the words from our Lord in Matthew 19:14. Let them sink in.

Do not hinder the little children with long complicated words like hypostasis, consubstantial, homoousius.
I don’t understand any of that. I’m a small child following my Lord.

 

[exchemist]

Christian trinitarians:
I would like to hear a thoughtful explanation of the Trinity without picking one or two bible verses and stretching them to fit into your mind’s view of this concept.

Also, please address my problem when answering.

My problem with the Trinity:
You separate god into 3 persons. Your doctrine specifically says the three persons are distinct.
To me, disinct means you draw a boundary around each, and describe the character and duties of each individually. Yes, a boundary, meaning there is a distinction between each.
Then you say the holy spirit comes to believers. Or he is sent by the father. How is it possible for this concept to make ANY tiny bit of logical sense? I ask this because you also claim that your god is omnipotent and omnipresent. Omnipresence means he is everywhere. That means the distinct person you call the father is everywhere. Everywhere means everywhere. There are no gaps. That would mean that the father is in me. That would mean that he does not have to send another person in his place. He is already here.
There is absolutely no logic to breaking the one God of the universe into 3 persons.

So, the rules are: no cherrypicked bible verses. No bible verses period. Just answer my problem in your own words. Like you were speaking to a small child. Consider me a small child.
Matthew 19:14. Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.
Think of the words from our Lord in Matthew 19:14. Let them sink in.

Do not hinder the little children with long complicated words like hypostasis, consubstantial, homoousius.
I don’t understand any of that. I’m a small child following my Lord.

I'm far from expert on the subject but what I have always understood is that God is seen as having three aspects: the creator and ruler of the world, the messenger of God's wisdom to Man (and possibly to other morally aware members of creation) and the spiritual inspiration of Man (ditto).
I don't think most trinitarian Christians are disposed to agonise long over why exactly their theology treats these three aspects as separate "persons". But if one believes Christ was God and man, then He was at one stage localised in time and space as a human being, which would be a phenomenon distinct from God as a universally transcendent entity. So treating Christ as a separate person from the Father would seem reasonable, at least.

 

[Maximilian]

Christian trinitarians:
I would like to hear a thoughtful explanation of the Trinity without picking one or two bible verses and stretching them to fit into your mind’s view of this concept.

Also, please address my problem when answering.

My problem with the Trinity:
You separate god into 3 persons. Your doctrine specifically says the three persons are distinct.
To me, disinct means you draw a boundary around each, and describe the character and duties of each individually. Yes, a boundary, meaning there is a distinction between each.
Then you say the holy spirit comes to believers. Or he is sent by the father. How is it possible for this concept to make ANY tiny bit of logical sense? I ask this because you also claim that your god is omnipotent and omnipresent. Omnipresence means he is everywhere. That means the distinct person you call the father is everywhere. Everywhere means everywhere. There are no gaps. That would mean that the father is in me. That would mean that he does not have to send another person in his place. He is already here.
There is absolutely no logic to breaking the one God of the universe into 3 persons.

So, the rules are: no cherrypicked bible verses. No bible verses period. Just answer my problem in your own words. Like you were speaking to a small child. Consider me a small child.
Matthew 19:14. Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.
Think of the words from our Lord in Matthew 19:14. Let them sink in.

Do not hinder the little children with long complicated words like hypostasis, consubstantial, homoousius.
I don’t understand any of that. I’m a small child following my Lord.

Excellent questions! Since it seems that you are a fan of logic, see if you can wrap your head around the following:


As am I'm sure you're aware, Luke 1:36 states that Mary and Elizabeth are cousins and that John is six months older than Jesus, making John and Jesus second cousins. Luke 3:23 also informs us that John baptized Jesus when this one was about 30 years old, said baptism found recorded in Luke 3:21, 22.


Considering all these historical facts from the Catholic's lens ask yourself:


Is John God's second cousin who is six months older than Him?

Why did God need to be baptized?

John saw God come down in the form of a bird and sit down on top of God's head?

Both John and God heard God saying to God, "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased"?

 

[InChrist]

Christian trinitarians:
I would like to hear a thoughtful explanation of the Trinity without picking one or two bible verses and stretching them to fit into your mind’s view of this concept.

Also, please address my problem when answering.

My problem with the Trinity:
You separate god into 3 persons. Your doctrine specifically says the three persons are distinct.
To me, disinct means you draw a boundary around each, and describe the character and duties of each individually. Yes, a boundary, meaning there is a distinction between each.
Then you say the holy spirit comes to believers. Or he is sent by the father. How is it possible for this concept to make ANY tiny bit of logical sense? I ask this because you also claim that your god is omnipotent and omnipresent. Omnipresence means he is everywhere. That means the distinct person you call the father is everywhere. Everywhere means everywhere. There are no gaps. That would mean that the father is in me. That would mean that he does not have to send another person in his place. He is already here.
There is absolutely no logic to breaking the one God of the universe into 3 persons.

So, the rules are: no cherrypicked bible verses. No bible verses period. Just answer my problem in your own words. Like you were speaking to a small child. Consider me a small child.
Matthew 19:14. Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.
Think of the words from our Lord in Matthew 19:14. Let them sink in.

Do not hinder the little children with long complicated words like hypostasis, consubstantial, homoousius.
I don’t understand any of that. I’m a small child following my Lord.

I believe that since the Bible states God is Love, God, therefore must have both unity (oneness) and diversity (plurality)...one God in three Persons. The plural Hebrew noun elohim (literally "gods") is repeatedly used to refer to the One God. The God presented in the Bible did not need to create any beings to experience love, communion and fellowship because this God is complete within Self, being three Persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit, separate and distinct, yet at the same time One God, eternally relating with one another in love.

In regard to your question about the omnipresence/omnipotence of God and why the Father would have to send the Holy Spirit, I don't necessarily see a conflict when I consider that the scriptures, besides showing a oneness between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, also reveal different roles carried out by each.

 

[Shadow Link]

Christian trinitarians:
I would like to hear a thoughtful explanation of the Trinity without picking one or two bible verses and stretching them to fit into your mind’s view of this concept.

Also, please address my problem when answering.

My problem with the Trinity:
You separate god into 3 persons. Your doctrine specifically says the three persons are distinct.
To me, disinct means you draw a boundary around each, and describe the character and duties of each individually. Yes, a boundary, meaning there is a distinction between each.
Then you say the holy spirit comes to believers. Or he is sent by the father. How is it possible for this concept to make ANY tiny bit of logical sense? I ask this because you also claim that your god is omnipotent and omnipresent. Omnipresence means he is everywhere. That means the distinct person you call the father is everywhere. Everywhere means everywhere. There are no gaps. That would mean that the father is in me. That would mean that he does not have to send another person in his place. He is already here.
There is absolutely no logic to breaking the one God of the universe into 3 persons.

So, the rules are: no cherrypicked bible verses. No bible verses period. Just answer my problem in your own words. Like you were speaking to a small child. Consider me a small child.
Matthew 19:14. Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.
Think of the words from our Lord in Matthew 19:14. Let them sink in.

Do not hinder the little children with long complicated words like hypostasis, consubstantial, homoousius.
I don’t understand any of that. I’m a small child following my Lord.

Isn't this secretly revealed knowledge forbidden for anyone to share?

 

[Brickjectivity]

Christian trinitarians:
I would like to hear a thoughtful explanation of the Trinity without picking one or two bible verses and stretching them to fit into your mind’s view of this concept.

Also, please address my problem when answering.

My problem with the Trinity:
You separate god into 3 persons. Your doctrine specifically says the three persons are distinct.
To me, disinct means you draw a boundary around each, and describe the character and duties of each individually. Yes, a boundary, meaning there is a distinction between each.
Then you say the holy spirit comes to believers. Or he is sent by the father. How is it possible for this concept to make ANY tiny bit of logical sense? I ask this because you also claim that your god is omnipotent and omnipresent. Omnipresence means he is everywhere. That means the distinct person you call the father is everywhere. Everywhere means everywhere. There are no gaps. That would mean that the father is in me. That would mean that he does not have to send another person in his place. He is already here.
There is absolutely no logic to breaking the one God of the universe into 3 persons.

So, the rules are: no cherrypicked bible verses. No bible verses period. Just answer my problem in your own words. Like you were speaking to a small child. Consider me a small child.
Matthew 19:14. Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.
Think of the words from our Lord in Matthew 19:14. Let them sink in.

Do not hinder the little children with long complicated words like hypostasis, consubstantial, homoousius.
I don’t understand any of that. I’m a small child following my Lord.

Here is what might make sense in a given framework of multiple creations (as suggested through the gospel of John and by John's letters):

There are multiple creations. There is a world you seek to bring into existence when you pray like Jesus "Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven." The trinity is part of that new creation where people forgive each other and where love is truth. The trinity is part of the new creation not the old. In other words its in heaven, not here yet except in faith. You're either in that creation by choice and action or you are out of it. In it is the trinity. Out of it there is not.

Omnipresence: God is conceptual and therefore everywhere.
Omnipotence: In that new creation, yes; and in the true world yes. In this world? This world is fading away. This is not the true world.
Omniscience: In the new creation yes. This world is fading away and is not the true world.

Logos: God manifest in the new creation (as explained in John).
Father: the principle by which we inherit Logos (as explained in John)
Holy Spirit: cycles, pulses or particular expressions of deity (also explained in John).

 

[shmogie]

Christian trinitarians:
I would like to hear a thoughtful explanation of the Trinity without picking one or two bible verses and stretching them to fit into your mind’s view of this concept.

Also, please address my problem when answering.

My problem with the Trinity:
You separate god into 3 persons. Your doctrine specifically says the three persons are distinct.
To me, disinct means you draw a boundary around each, and describe the character and duties of each individually. Yes, a boundary, meaning there is a distinction between each.
Then you say the holy spirit comes to believers. Or he is sent by the father. How is it possible for this concept to make ANY tiny bit of logical sense? I ask this because you also claim that your god is omnipotent and omnipresent. Omnipresence means he is everywhere. That means the distinct person you call the father is everywhere. Everywhere means everywhere. There are no gaps. That would mean that the father is in me. That would mean that he does not have to send another person in his place. He is already here.
There is absolutely no logic to breaking the one God of the universe into 3 persons.

So, the rules are: no cherrypicked bible verses. No bible verses period. Just answer my problem in your own words. Like you were speaking to a small child. Consider me a small child.
Matthew 19:14. Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.
Think of the words from our Lord in Matthew 19:14. Let them sink in.

Do not hinder the little children with long complicated words like hypostasis, consubstantial, homoousius.
I don’t understand any of that. I’m a small child following my Lord.

God is a single being, with three points of consciousness. Totally alien to us since we have only one point of consciousness. With God, these points have different responsibilities, yet they are never separated across the universe.
My dads last name is Smith, my last name is Smith, my sonś last name is Smith, we are genetically interconnected, yet we are separate as Many, Moe, and Jack. All Smiths, all separate.

There are simply too many Scriptures, OT as well as NT that indicate the plurality of God to ignore them.
As to the interchangeability of the roles and points of consciousness of God, I have problems with that. The controlling point is always the Father, the Son the Son, and the Spirit the Spirit.

Remember, human reasoning and logic are rather pitiful tools to use in defining God, He is a being beyond the reach of these tools.

The Bible may use human terms like Father and Son and Spirit to give us a glimmer of God, but truly he is beyond our ability to fully understand,

 

[blü 2]

Christian trinitarians:
I would like to hear a thoughtful explanation of the Trinity without picking one or two bible verses and stretching them to fit into your mind’s view of this concept.

Also, please address my problem when answering.

My problem with the Trinity:
You separate god into 3 persons. Your doctrine specifically says the three persons are distinct.
To me, disinct means you draw a boundary around each, and describe the character and duties of each individually. Yes, a boundary, meaning there is a distinction between each.
Then you say the holy spirit comes to believers. Or he is sent by the father. How is it possible for this concept to make ANY tiny bit of logical sense? I ask this because you also claim that your god is omnipotent and omnipresent. Omnipresence means he is everywhere. That means the distinct person you call the father is everywhere. Everywhere means everywhere. There are no gaps. That would mean that the father is in me. That would mean that he does not have to send another person in his place. He is already here.
There is absolutely no logic to breaking the one God of the universe into 3 persons.

So, the rules are: no cherrypicked bible verses. No bible verses period. Just answer my problem in your own words. Like you were speaking to a small child. Consider me a small child.
Matthew 19:14. Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.
Think of the words from our Lord in Matthew 19:14. Let them sink in.

Do not hinder the little children with long complicated words like hypostasis, consubstantial, homoousius.
I don’t understand any of that. I’m a small child following my Lord.

Bad news, I'm afraid.

The Trinitarians make no pretense that the Trinity doctrine makes sense. They call it 'a mystery in the strict sense'. That means (and I quote the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church) that the Trinity doctrine

'can neither be known by unaided human reason apart from revelation, nor cogently demonstrated by reason after it has been revealed'.​

This is RCC and Anglo/Pisco doctrine and I dare say the other Trinitarian churches, because the Trinity doctrine is indeed incoherent.

As for claiming scriptural support for it, there's none.

That's for a fairly obvious reason: the doctrine didn't exist until the 4th century CE, long after the NT was written. Instead the NT attributes at least 17 utterances to Jesus in direct speech in which he denies he's God, says he's God's agent, has no powers but those God gives him, says he worships God ─ and never once claims otherwise.

Paul agrees ─ he distinguishes the Father as God from Jesus as Lord.

The doctrine is a political fix from early church history, a nonsense and a sorry job.

 

[Maximilian]

I believe that since the Bible states God is Love, God, therefore must have both unity (oneness) and diversity (plurality)...one God in three Persons. The plural Hebrew noun elohim (literally "gods") is repeatedly used to refer to the One God. The God presented in the Bible did not need to create any beings to experience love, communion and fellowship because this God is complete within Self, being three Persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit, separate and distinct, yet at the same time One God, eternally relating with one another in love.

In regard to your question about the omnipresence/omnipotence of God and why the Father would have to send the Holy Spirit, I don't necessarily see a conflict when I consider that the scriptures, besides showing a oneness between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, also reveal different roles carried out by each.

1. Modalism

2. Latin Trinitarianism
2.1 Divine Life Stream Theories
2.2 Relative Identity Theories

3. Social Trinitarianism
3.1 Functional Monotheist Social Trinitarianism
3.2 Trinity Monotheist Social Trinitarianism
3.3 Perichoretic Monotheist Social Trinitarianism
3.4 Group Mind Monotheist Social Trinitarianism

4. Mysterianism
4.1 Negative Mysterianism
4.2 Positive Mysterianism

So, of all these, which particular styling of the Athanasian Creed's Trinitarian doctrine do you subscribe to and why?

 

[Maximilian]

Here is what might make sense in a given framework of multiple creations (as suggested through the gospel of John and by John's letters):

There are multiple creations. There is a world you seek to bring into existence when you pray like Jesus "Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven." The trinity is part of that new creation where people forgive each other and where love is truth. The trinity is part of the new creation not the old. In other words its in heaven, not here yet except in faith. You're either in that creation by choice and action or you are out of it. In it is the trinity. Out of it there is not.

Omnipresence: God is conceptual and therefore everywhere.
Omnipotence: In that new creation, yes; and in the true world yes. In this world? This world is fading away. This is not the true world.
Omniscience: In the new creation yes. This world is fading away and is not the true world.

Logos: God manifest in the new creation (as explained in John).
Father: the principle by which we inherit Logos (as explained in John)
Holy Spirit: cycles, pulses or particular expressions of deity (also explained in John).

1. Modalism

2. Latin Trinitarianism
2.1 Divine Life Stream Theories
2.2 Relative Identity Theories

3. Social Trinitarianism
3.1 Functional Monotheist Social Trinitarianism
3.2 Trinity Monotheist Social Trinitarianism
3.3 Perichoretic Monotheist Social Trinitarianism
3.4 Group Mind Monotheist Social Trinitarianism

4. Mysterianism
4.1 Negative Mysterianism
4.2 Positive Mysterianism

So, of all these, which particular styling of the Athanasian Creed's Trinitarian doctrine do you subscribe to and why?

 

[Maximilian]

God is a single being, with three points of consciousness.

Where is this explicitly taught in the Holy Scriptures?

 

[Brickjectivity]

So, of all these, which particular styling of the Athanasian Creed's Trinitarian doctrine do you subscribe to and why?

It appears that creeds are ecumenical in name but political in nature. I respect what is good that people have done over the centuries, not creeds. I like many of the things that saintly people have done. I don't like some other things. None of them should have created a creed. It was a mistake, trading momentary political advantages for long term bitterness and bad feelings. There are plenty of reasons to think so historically, and there are plenty of indications that they really failed to keep the spirit of Jesus teachings. In fact the arguing about creeds seems like an ugly birthmark for Christianity.

 

[blü 2]

Remember, human reasoning and logic are rather pitiful tools to use in defining God, He is a being beyond the reach of these tools.

If there's no definition of God then it follows that anyone who speaks about God has no idea what they're talking about, no?

 

[Maximilian]

It appears that creeds are ecumenical in name but political in nature. I respect what is good that people have done over the centuries, not creeds. I like many of the things that saintly people have done. I don't like some other things. None of them should have created a creed. It was a mistake, trading momentary political advantages for long term bitterness and bad feelings. There are plenty of reasons to think so historically, and there are plenty of indications that they really failed to keep the spirit of Jesus teachings. In fact the arguing about creeds seems like an ugly birthmark for Christianity.

So you're not Trinitarian?

 

[Brickjectivity]

So you're not Trinitarian?

Its a valid way of looking at things, unless we make it political through creeds. By the way I don't see anything on your religion tag, not that you are required to have one.

 

[Maximilian]

Its a valid way of looking at things, unless we make it political through creeds. By the way I don't see anything on your religion tag, not that you are required to have one.

Political through creeds?

 

[Brickjectivity]

Political through creeds?

It appears that creeds are ecumenical in name but political in nature. I respect what is good that people have done over the centuries, not creeds. I like many of the things that saintly people have done. I don't like some other things. None of them should have created a creed. It was a mistake, trading momentary political advantages for long term bitterness and bad feelings. There are plenty of reasons to think so historically, and there are plenty of indications that they really failed to keep the spirit of Jesus teachings. In fact the arguing about creeds seems like an ugly birthmark for Christianity.

 

[Maximilian]

Momentary political advantages?

 

[Brickjectivity]

Momentary political advantages?

I think at this point I'm going to just wait for the OP to reply.

 

[syo]

I would like to hear a thoughtful explanation of the Trinity

We have one power that creates everything (Father). This power creates according to a plan/ Logos Holy wisdom (the Son). That power gives life to the creations (the Holy Spirit). Three roles of one God.