Why is the Trinity so controversial?

[PearlSeeker]

It's more like this
View attachment 44868

"God" is where all three meet but the circles are distinct (father, son, "and" holy spirit). Trinity not unity.

That would mean each person is not fully God.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

It's more like this
View attachment 44868

"God" is where all three meet but the circles are distinct (father, son, "and" holy spirit). Trinity not unity.

So God is a little piece of the Father and a little piece of the Son and a little piece of the Holy Spirit? I think it is more accurate to think ALL of the Father is in God and ALL of the Son is in God and ALL of the Holy Spirit is in God. Would you say that a human family is made up of a little part of the husband and a little part of the wife and a little part of the children? That makes as musch sense, which is no sense at all.

 

[PearlSeeker]

But I think the name "God" could be thought of like a family name. Sam Jones and Susan Jones and John Jones are three separate people that make up a family named Jones. Fathe God and Son God and Spirit God are three separate "Persons" that male up one family named God.

God as a family. Yes, that's a common analogy. Their surname is God - all are God and all share the divine nature (just as people share humanity). They are also coeternal and in perfect harmony - one will, one mind, acting always as one.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

That would mean each person is not fully God.

How so? By virtue of tri- it's their same nature (middle-god). One is human, one spirit, one creator.

Spirits don't have flesh and those with flesh can't create. So, it would need to be same nature three people.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

God as a family. Yes, that's a common analogy. Their surname is God - all are God and all share the divine nature (just as people share humanity). They are also coeternal and in perfect harmony - one will, one mind, acting always as one.

That's the same nature. When you say "are" you're saying the mother is the father is the daughter and grandchild. One person cannot be in harmony "with 'each' other."

So "god is jesus" is incorrect in this context. Jesus is in harmony "with" his father. God in harmony with himself?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

So God is a little piece of the Father and a little piece of the Son and a little piece of the Holy Spirit? I think it is more accurate to think ALL of the Father is in God and ALL of the Son is in God and ALL of the Holy Spirit is in God. Would you say that a human family is made up of a little part of the husband and a little part of the wife and a little part of the children? That makes as musch sense, which is no sense at all.

I see it's more the same nature. Just as if you have a family all of you have the same DNA (in this example). It would be odd to say you are the same as your son and grandson just because you share DNA. So, how you're interpreting it isn't what I was getting at.

I'm sure you don't believe you have part of your biological mother just because you have some of her DNA? I'm sure the relationship is more personal than DNA?

Sounds like picking straws. Wouldn't it be the relation-ship between the three that matters and not whether you want to use "is" or with, medium, and, and tri- ?

Also. Why call it a Trinity and not unity?

If jesus "is" the creator, than why not just say jesus is the creator and the holy spirit?

 

[PearlSeeker]

How so? By virtue of tri- it's their same nature (middle-god). One is human, one spirit, one creator.

God is not their middle ground but their shared essence. Maybe it would be better to draw a big circle around.

That's the same nature. When you say "are" you're saying the mother is the father is the daughter and grandchild. One person cannot be in harmony "with 'each' other."

So "god is jesus" is incorrect in this context. Jesus is in harmony "with" his father. God in harmony with himself?

Yes. You cannot say God is Jesus. You can only say God is Father, Son and HS. But you can say Father is God, Son is God, HS is God.

Let's say there is a family Jones: Bill Jones, Anna Jones and Thomas Jones. So Bill is Jones, Anna is Jones and Thomas is also Jones. But (family) Jones is not (just) Thomas. Jones are Anna, Thomas and Bill. Jones is not in harmony with Jones. Thomas, Anna and Bill are in harmony with each other.

 

[blü 2]

Actually I did not say Paul believed in the Trinity in fact I believe as your quote indicated likely he did not, but Paul spoke of Jesus as Lord. and this interpreted as Jesus Christ being God incarnate.

Philippians 2:1-11

2 So if there is any encouragement in Christ, any comfort from love, any participation in the Spirit, any affection and sympathy, 2 complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind. 3 Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. 4 Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. 5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Ah, the 'Kenosis Hymn'. It's apparently a poem (is metrical Greek) and thought to be a quote from pre-Pauline christianity. The most interesting thing about it is its claim that Jesus was not named Jesus in his lifetime but only after his death. Another possible curious thing about it is that the words "even death on a cross" apparently don't conform to the meter, and so allow the guess that they're a gloss which some copyist incorporated into the poem, which in turn may imply that Jesus was not originally thought to be executed by crucifixion ─ something of a long shot, indeed, but underlining how little genuine information about an historical Jesus there is.

As for the Trinity, the hymn doesn't claim that Jesus is God (says Jesus didn't think he could be equal with God) and Paul is consistent in saying Jesus is Lord BUT the Father is God.

However, as you know, that wouldn't stop a politician, not even one in the early Christian church, if the popular view demanded that Jesus now be God.

 

[shunyadragon]

Ah, the 'Kenosis Hymn'. It's apparently a poem (is metrical Greek) and thought to be a quote from pre-Pauline christianity. The most interesting thing about it is its claim that Jesus was not named Jesus in his lifetime but only after his death. Another possible curious thing about it is that the words "even death on a cross" apparently don't conform to the meter, and so allow the guess that they're a gloss which some copyist incorporated into the poem, which in turn may imply that Jesus was not originally thought to be executed by crucifixion ─ something of a long shot, indeed, but underlining how little genuine information about an historical Jesus there is.

As for the Trinity, the hymn doesn't claim that Jesus is God (says Jesus didn't think he could be equal with God) and Paul is consistent in saying Jesus is Lord BUT the Father is God.

However, as you know, that wouldn't stop a politician, not even one in the early Christian church, if the popular view demanded that Jesus now be God.

There is merit to the above, but I do believe the Trinity evolved, and tipped when the following “in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19, ESV), and other texts like in Acts. There are only texts of Matthew and others dating from the 3rd and 4th century.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

God is not their middle ground but their shared essence. Maybe it would be better to draw a big circle around.

Creator/Jesus/Spirit "share" essence but they are not of one essence so they are not each other. You can't share with oneself. It would be three linked circle because where all three overlap is the essence they share.

Yes. You cannot say God is Jesus. You can only say God is Father, Son and HS. But you can say Father is God, Son is God, HS is God.

That's a contradiction: You can't say god is jesus, but you can say the son is god.

Is god the father jesus? If you are sharing between more than one party, then there they can't be each other.

Let's say there is a family Jones: Bill Jones, Anna Jones and Thomas Jones.
So Bill is Jones, Anna is Jones and Thomas is also Jones.
But (family) Jones is not (just) Thomas.
Jones are Anna, Thomas and Bill. Jones is not in harmony with Jones.
Thomas, Anna and Bill are in harmony with each other.

When you use "is" you are saying Anna is Thomas is Bill. You're not referring to them by jesus, creator, and spirit's "same sir name", but you're literally referring to each of these entities as each other.

They're not each other, they just share the same name and are one "family." When you say "is" it is no longer a family but a unity. Not three members of one family but one person of one family-that doesn't make sense.

I couldn't understand the rest. Here is how I'd see it.

1. Bill, Anne, and Thomas are three individual people
2. They all are one family because they have the same last name Jones.
3. They share one X in common because they are a family
4. Bill, Anne, and Thomas "are" not each other.

When you make up a family, it is between more than one party. You can say metaphorically, they make up one unit. However, the trinity is expressed as a tri- (three) in one not a unity (all as one person). So, referring to these two things "tri-" and not "unity" it makes more sense to say one is a human, one is creator, and one is a spirit and because of their roles (husband, husband, child) they do different things but because they are each individual family members, they are not each other.

 

[viole]

hmm.. not quite. Soft polytheism maybe or soft monoteism. It depends. Cup half full or half empty?

According to what you say, I could declare Zeus and Apollo as being part of the same substance, being (or some other meaningless spiritual term), and magically turn Ancient Greece polytheism into monotheism.

If they are different persons (we know they are, because there are things that the Father knows and the Son does not), then we are talking of polytheism.

And: if the Son is God, and God is the Father (as the diagram shows), then it follows that the Son is the Father, for the transitive property of "is". Ergo, the diagram is absurd, unless with "is" we mean something completely different, which would call here for a precise definition.

Ciao

- viole

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

That's the same nature. When you say "are" you're saying the mother is the father is the daughter and grandchild. One person cannot be in harmony "with 'each' other."

So "god is jesus" is incorrect in this context. Jesus is in harmony "with" his father. God in harmony with himself?

Instead of "God is Jesus" it would be better to say "Jesus is God". In the human example "Jones is NOT John" but John IS Jones".

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

I see it's more the same nature. Just as if you have a family all of you have the same DNA (in this example). It would be odd to say you are the same as your son and grandson just because you share DNA. So, how you're interpreting it isn't what I was getting at.

I'm sure you don't believe you have part of your biological mother just because you have some of her DNA? I'm sure the relationship is more personal than DNA?

Sounds like picking straws. Wouldn't it be the relation-ship between the three that matters and not whether you want to use "is" or with, medium, and, and tri- ?

Also. Why call it a Trinity and not unity?

If jesus "is" the creator, than why not just say jesus is the creator and the holy spirit?

Mamy good questions.

 

[Starlight]

According to what you say, I could declare Zeus and Apollo as being part of the same substance, being (or some other meaningless spiritual term), and magically turn Ancient Greece polytheism into monotheism.

If they are different persons (we know they are, because there are things that the Father knows and the Son does not), then we are talking of polytheism.

And: if the Son is God, and God is the Father (as the diagram shows), then it follows that the Son is the Father, for the transitive property of "is". Ergo, the diagram is absurd, unless with "is" we mean something completely different, which would call here for a precise definition.

Ciao

- viole

In the offical trinity doctrine the three persons in God has same essence. The essence is the divine substance that binds them together as one God. Because of this the three persons in God can never split apart from each other. They are always togheter as one and they work always as one. And remember the three persons in God is also one in purpose and will.

For example two humans who is always togheter as one because both two humans has one hand that is fused together in the other's hand, and they both has one leg that is fused togheter in the other persons leg. They also share the same blood literaly. The same blood passes through both of their bodies. And if doctor do surgery because he want to split the two humans apart they both die.

The trinity is similar to that example above. And yes i know this is a bad example because two humans is not God. God is pure spirit. God do not die. And God is spiritual not physical.

So the difference between the trinity and your example like the gods Zeus and Apollo is that Zeus and Apollo do not have a divine substance that bind them togheter as one. So Apollo and Zeus can be completely separated from each other.
In the trinity, the father, son and holy spirit can never split apart from each other. They are always togheter as one and they work always as one. And remember the three persons in God is also one in purpose and will.

But yes trinity is soft monotheism or soft polytheism. In reality the trinity is none of them.

 

[shunyadragon]

In the offical trinity doctrine the three persons in God has same essence. The essence is the divine substance that binds them together as one God. Because of this the three persons in God can never split apart from each other. They are always togheter as one and they work always as one. And remember the three persons in God is also one in purpose and will.

For example two humans who is always togheter as one because both two humans has one hand that is fused together in the other's hand, and they both has one leg that is fused togheter in the other persons leg. They also share the same blood literaly. The same blood passes through both of their bodies. And if doctor do surgery because he want to split the two humans apart they both die.

The trinity is similar to that example above. And yes i know this is a bad example because two humans is not God. God is pure spirit. God do not die. And God is spiritual not physical.

So the difference between the trinity and your example like the gods Zeus and Apollo is that Zeus and Apollo do not have a divine substance that bind them togheter as one. So Apollo and Zeus can be completely separated from each other.
In the trinity, the father, son and holy spirit can never split apart from each other. They are always togheter as one and they work always as one. And remember the three persons in God is also one in purpose and will.

These analogies are Sunday school methods of teaching the Trinity, and have no bearing on the actual argument concerning the reality of the nature of God's existetence.

 

[Starlight]

These analogies are Sunday school methods of teaching the Trinity, and have no bearing on the actual argument concerning the reality of the nature of God's existetence.

Explain please. I'm not a christian by the way. I do not believe in the trinity. I believe in strict monotheism like Judaism.
I never been on sundayschool and learned about the trinity

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Instead of "God is Jesus" it would be better to say "Jesus is God". In the human example "Jones is NOT John" but John IS Jones".

Why make it so complicated? Instead of saying John "is" Jones, why don't acknowledge John as John with or without his family?

When you use "is" it can be either way God is Jesus or Jesus is God. It's saying Jesus=god. Instead of using "is" why don't use what scripture uses-relation/ship, with, medium, and, body, and so forth?

Why make it more mystical than what it is?

 

[Starlight]

These analogies are Sunday school methods of teaching the Trinity, and have no bearing on the actual argument concerning the reality of the nature of God's existetence.

The trinity is either soft monotheism or soft polytheism. Depends on if the cup is half empty or half full
In reality the trinity is something in between monotheism and polytheism.
Do you not see that?

 

[Starlight]

These analogies are Sunday school methods of teaching the Trinity, and have no bearing on the actual argument concerning the reality of the nature of God's existetence.

I believe in strict/pure monotheism just like judaism, but i do think it wise to try to understand what the trinity is, and why christian think it is soft monotheism. Its a question about interfaith.

Many non-christians do not agree that the trinity is soft monotheism but i think they can at the same time accept that christians believe it without make fun of it. It is possible to accept others belief without agreeing.

 

[viole]

In the offical trinity doctrine the three persons in God has same essence. The essence is the divine substance that binds them together as one God. Because of this the three persons in God can never split apart from each other. They are always togheter as one and they work always as one. And remember the three persons in God is also one in purpose and will.

For example two humans who is always togheter as one because both two humans has one hand that is fused together in the other's hand, and they both has one leg that is fused togheter in the other persons leg. They also share the same blood literaly. The same blood passes through both of their bodies. And if doctor do surgery because he want to split the two humans apart they both die.

The trinity is similar to that example above. And yes i know this is a bad example because two humans is not God. God is pure spirit. God do not die. And God is spiritual not physical.

So the difference between the trinity and your example like the gods Zeus and Apollo is that Zeus and Apollo do not have a divine substance that bind them togheter as one. So Apollo and Zeus can be completely separated from each other.
In the trinity, the father, son and holy spirit can never split apart from each other. They are always togheter as one and they work always as one. And remember the three persons in God is also one in purpose and will.

But yes trinity is soft monotheism or soft polytheism. In reality the trinity is none of them.

Ok, that is like quarks (the three persons), put together by gluons (the divine part). And your God would be like a proton. This is really the closest analogy I can think of.

Still, even if quarks cannot be separated (since the attraction force increases with distance), we still identify them as three different fundamental particles. And the proton is not considered a fundamental particle.

So, it looks like God is not fundamental, either, since it is reducible to sub-constituents. Did I get that right?

But if that is the case, what does it mean to say "Jesus is God", like most trinitarians proclaim? Makes no sense. It would be like saying: the "up" quark is "proton".

Or, in your analogy of those siamese kids: "kid 1 is siamese twins".

Ciao

- viole