The Trinity makes no sense to me. Please Explain....

[Walkntune]

Sorry to butt in, but does that suggest that Jesus is the body of God, the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God, and the Father is the soul of God? Then how come Jesus prayed to God the Father for help when he doubted and such?

For the same reason I have to calm my flesh down when it craves a twinkie.I can tell it is asking me for it but that other part that knows better has to keep it disciplined. My flesh will just have to die.

 

[Shermana]

"A little jargon is all that is necessary to impose on the people. The less they comprehend, the more they admire." Quoted by C. Volney, The Ruins, p. 177 (1872). - Letter from Gregory of Nazanzius to Jerome.

A most fitting description of the Nicean wordplay to define the Trinity.

 

[Walkntune]

Here is an example in scripture.

For though I be absent in the flesh, yet am I with you in the spirit, joying and beholding your order, and the stedfastness of your faith in Christ.
6 As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him:
7 Rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving.
8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
9For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

Jesus was the body all the fulness of the Godhead dwelt in.

 

[Shermana]

The word "Godhead" is olde English spelling for what is "godhood", the word Theotetos means "the quality of being a god".

It is most certainly not a nominative noun. The concept that "Godhead" meant something of a nominative culmination of an actual beingness of God Himself came along well after its initial use as such, and is essentially meaningless outside of its original qualitative meaning. Nonetheless, the widespread misconception of what "Godhead" means rampantly persists. This is also an example of where Strong's may be deliberately distorting a definition for the sake of doctrine. It is often translated as "Deity" but often incorrectly misunderstood as the nominative rather than the Qualitative use of the term.

Stephen E. Broyles, in his "What Do We Mean By Godhead" considers the other Greek sources and defines it as a "quality of being a god." [EQ 50.4 (1978), 224]

http://www.4yhwh.com/bible-files/theotes.htm




http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=godhead

godhead (n.) Look up godhead at Dictionary.com
c.1200, from god + Middle English -hede, cognate with -hood and German -heit. Along with maidenhead, this is the sole survival of this form of the suffix. Old English had godhad "divine nature."

Nonetheless, numerous Trinitarian sources insist on twisting what the word plainly means beyond what it's used in every other use of the term to mean "State of being God" rather than "State of being a god" in general. We can see that they deliberately insisted on using the ambiguous term "deity" as opposed to "Divinity" (as in the state of being divine, or godly) without much good cause to support their doctrine:

Mark: J.B. Lightfoot whom James Hastings is referencing in his book St. Paul's Epistle to the Colossians, included more on the subject that was not covered in Hastings Dictionary, Lightfoot went on to say concerning Latin versions:
"In the Latin versions, owing to the poverty of the language, both 'Theotes'
and 'Theiotes' are translated by the same term divinity; but this was felt to be
inadequate, and the word deity was coined at a later date to represent
"Theotes."

 

[Sleeppy]

Yes. They are not wholly separate from each other.

Start by trying to identify exactly what your own essence is. Here's a hint to help you narrow it down: It's not your body, your intellect, your mind, your strength, your soul or your consciousness. If we can't even explain our own essences, how can we hope to explain God's essence?

If you think we can put the infinite God in a box and study Him, feel free to go right on believing that.

Only in the sense of identifying the small little bit of ocean that we can comprehend. We cannot identify what lies beyond.

Because they have the same Essence. My essence is different from yours. It's what makes me a different being entirely from you.

Also, in Orthodox theology, the Father is the source of the Trinity; it is from Him that the Son is begotten and the Spirit proceeds. All three are one in the Father, in the Divine Essence, and in the Divine Will.
[QUOTE/]

How can you use the word, 'essence', to say that you have one and that it makes you unique.. But you cannot describe how an 'essence' makes one unique? You don't see how dangerous that is intellectually? You should be able to know exactly what you're talking about, otherwise it becomes obvious useless speculation.

Time and space have been infinite, yet there are descriptions for billions of years, all of which have been allowed to happen by God's will.

 

[Windwalker]

You know, there's a reason in Christianity why we use apophatic theology to describe God: It's impossible to identify exactly who or what or how God is. It's most effective to describe what He is not.

What I don't understand then is why make a positive statement such as the Trinity? That is the opposite of apophatic or negative theology.

Personally, I agree with the aphophatic approach, or negation when it comes to God. It's the approach of mystics. But what is of course telling of this when it comes to the Trinity doctrine is that the mystics will pay lip service to the church in its positive theologies, its dogmas about things like the Trinity and say we can't say anything about God, except of course what the church declares... It's the fine line of the mystic between being freed from religious dogma, and putting themselves at risk of being burned alive at the stake by it.

 

[Shiranui117]

What I don't understand then is why make a positive statement such as the Trinity? That is the opposite of apophatic or negative theology.

It's a little bit like the scientific method: Throw out false/disproven ideas, and look at what's left. The Trinity is what's left.

Personally, I agree with the aphophatic approach, or negation when it comes to God. It's the approach of mystics. But what is of course telling of this when it comes to the Trinity doctrine is that the mystics will pay lip service to the church in its positive theologies, its dogmas about things like the Trinity and say we can't say anything about God, except of course what the church declares... It's the fine line of the mystic between being freed from religious dogma, and putting themselves at risk of being burned alive at the stake by it.

I do think monasticism is ultimately at the heart of Christianity.

 

[Windwalker]

It's a little bit like the scientific method: Throw out false/disproven ideas, and look at what's left. The Trinity is what's left.

But according to what I just read of apophatic theology in a Wiki article, this is not the case (nor is it consistent with negation in Buddhist or Hindu traditions as well).

"Adherents of the apophatic tradition in Christianity hold that, outside of directly-revealed knowledge through Scripture and Sacred Tradition (such as the Trinitarian nature of God), God in His essence is beyond the limits of what human beings (or even angels) can understand; He is transcendent in essence (ousia). Further knowledge must be sought in a direct experience of God or His indestructible energies through theoria (vision of God). In Eastern Christianity, God is immanent in his hypostasis or existences."
​

[italics mine]

What this is saying is that the Trinity is a positive or cataphatic theology, not apophatic. If you cannot say what God is, then you don't conclude you can. That's a contradiction. Negative theology says you cannot define it because it is beyond human reason. Negative theology doesn't end in positive theology.

The other aspect of this is what I said earlier as well is that to call God a Trinity is to say it is "this, and not that", which is dualistic. God is now an object of analysis, making it comprehensible by reason and logic, and thus not-God.

I do think monasticism is ultimately at the heart of Christianity.

Wouldn't that be nice if it were still true?

 

[Shiranui117]

But according to what I just read of apophatic theology in a Wiki article, this is not the case (nor is it consistent with negation in Buddhist or Hindu traditions as well).

"Adherents of the apophatic tradition in Christianity hold that, outside of directly-revealed knowledge through Scripture and Sacred Tradition (such as the Trinitarian nature of God), God in His essence is beyond the limits of what human beings (or even angels) can understand; He is transcendent in essence (ousia). Further knowledge must be sought in a direct experience of God or His indestructible energies through theoria (vision of God). In Eastern Christianity, God is immanent in his hypostasis or existences."
​

[italics mine]

What this is saying is that the Trinity is a positive or cataphatic theology, not apophatic. If you cannot say what God is, then you don't conclude you can. That's a contradiction. Negative theology says you cannot define it because it is beyond human reason. Negative theology doesn't end in positive theology.

The other aspect of this is what I said earlier as well is that to call God a Trinity is to say it is "this, and not that", which is dualistic. God is now an object of analysis, making it comprehensible by reason and logic, and thus not-God.

Hmm, an interesting take. I'll consider that.

Wouldn't that be nice if it were still true?

It still is true. Whether every church or denomination recognizes that is beside the point.

 

[Windwalker]

It still is true. Whether every church or denomination recognizes that is beside the point.

One thing that Catholicism has/had going for it was that they accommodated those on the inner path in supporting various monastic orders. Since the reformation however things like contemplative practices have fallen aside largely, are not much spoken about nor taught, and certainly in Protestant circles they are virtually nonexistent. The closest you might get is the ecstatic practices of Pentecostals, but they are hardly rooted in any sort of linage and are largely rudderless. The mystical heart of institutional Christianity, though it may be there buried in history here and there, is not the living heart of the religion, IMHO.

 

[Shiranui117]

One thing that Catholicism has/had going for it was that they accommodated those on the inner path in supporting various monastic orders. Since the reformation however things like contemplative practices have fallen aside largely, are not much spoken about nor taught, and certainly in Protestant circles they are virtually nonexistent. The closest you might get is the ecstatic practices of Pentecostals, but they are hardly rooted in any sort of linage and are largely rudderless. The mystical heart of institutional Christianity, though it may be there buried in history here and there, is not the living heart of the religion, IMHO.

Do you know about the Hesychastic tradition in Orthodox monasticism?

Hesychasm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's very much a continuation of the ancient monastic traditions in Christianity. There's also a collection of texts that garners immense respect in the Orthodox world, known as the Philokalia.

You are correct in saying that, in Western Christianity, true monasticism is an endangered and increasingly scarce phenomenon. But in the East, particularly among the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, almost the entire spirituality is derived from monastic rules and practices. In fact, the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom celebrated nearly every Sunday in the EO church was borrowed from the monasteries, after the Fourth Crusaders burned all texts of the public variant of the Liturgy when they sacked Constantinople.

Monasticism in Orthodoxy is still very vibrant, and still contributes much; most bishops in the Orthodox Church today were originally monks before they were elected. And everyone knows the name of Mt. Athos. And of
St. Catherine's of Sinai, St. Sergei of Radonezh, the Monastery of the Caves in Kiev, the Monastery of St. Antony...

 

[Windwalker]

Do you know about the Hesychastic tradition in Orthodox monasticism?

Hesychasm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wow, really interesting. No, I was unaware of that, but it makes sense in what I was reading earlier about negative theology how it is more prominent in the Eastern Church. The descriptions I read are definitely in keeping with many typical mystical practices. And what I found funny is this description here about seeking ecstatic experiences:

"Orthodox Tradition warns against seeking ecstasy as an end in itself. ... Moreover, seeking after unusual 'spiritual' experiences can itself cause great harm, ruining the soul and the mind of the seeker. Such a seeking after 'spiritual' experiences can lead to spiritual delusion (Ru. prelest, Gr. plani)—the antonym of sobriety—in which a person believes himself or herself to be a saint, has hallucinations in which he or she 'sees' angels, Christ, etc. This state of spiritual delusion is in a superficial, egotistical way pleasurable..."
​

It made me think of what I said of the Pentecostals/Charismatics. I have an analogy I use to describe this within the Protestant traditions as that of children who without any knowledge from an adult find the keys to a car and figure out how to start the engine. They discover the gas peddle and rev the engine up and down, feeling the energy of it in the seat, radiating into the bodies. They jump one after the other into the seats revving the motor over and over, vroom, vroom, vroommmm! Yet none have any idea what the stick shift on the floor does or is for.

They have no idea the car is not an tool for personal pleasures, but a vehicle of transportation to move them from point A to point B, which when they arrive they step out of the vehicle. It's not an end in itself. It's not about their "blessings". It's not about them and their egos. So in a lot of ways, anyone moving into these areas needs to have that understanding, lest they use it to puff themselves up and completely miss the point. "Tongues shall cease", I suppose is a good way to point that out.

You are correct in saying that, in Western Christianity, true monasticism is an endangered and increasingly scarce phenomenon. But in the East, particularly among the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, almost the entire spirituality is derived from monastic rules and practices. In fact, the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom celebrated nearly every Sunday in the EO church was borrowed from the monasteries, after the Fourth Crusaders burned all texts of the public variant of the Liturgy when they sacked Constantinople.

Monasticism in Orthodoxy is still very vibrant, and still contributes much; most bishops in the Orthodox Church today were originally monks before they were elected.

It's good to know there are some Christian traditions that are able to see to the mystical heart of their religion. That's the point of all religions. I hear that echoed in the Western Christian mystic Meister Eckhart as he says so well, "Theologians may quarrel, but the mystics of the world speak the same language." Which by the way, is why I find the Trinity doctrine to be an interesting model about God, but ultimately isn't the Truth of God. It's a theological quarrel.

 

[mrraatz]

Firestorm:

This is something that I've noticed some time ago which may help.


God says that he is one (Deuteronomy 6:4). Now think for a moment about the concept of "one." If you try to define the concept of one numerically, you would start by writing a vertical line as follows:

1

But that symbol by itself has no meaning until you assign it value. It must equal something. Where could we go from there? We might try saying that it equals itself. So:

1=1

But if you've taken a course in logic you'll recognize that as circular reasoning. A thing defined as itself doesn't tell you what that thing actually is. Let's take it a step further. Every number that exists has a denominator of 1. So:

1/1=1

Here we have a complete relationship that no other number can satisfy. This relationship makes 1 unique, and so defines it. If we tried any other number,

-1 / -1 = 1
0 / 0 = Undefined
2 / 2 = 1
infinity / infinity = Undefined

As you can see, any number that has a denominator other than one reduces to something other than itself. But let's look at the definition for a moment.

1/1=1

Here we have the number 1 expressed as three operands: Numerator, Denominator and Result.
Each operand is equal to the whole value of the expression as well as to each other.
There is only one value of 1 expressed.
The expression is defined by a form of the word "to be" (a Being)
The Numerator is a concept that "just is."
The Result is a concept whose value is generated (begotten) by the Numerator.
The Denominator is a concept that logically follows from the equation.
Furthermore, the Denominator is the active force that seeks out the meaning of the Numerator and reveals that meaning as the Result.
The equation 1/1=1 is an eternal concept: there can never be a moment when the statement is untrue.
Each of the three operands is dependent on the other two for its existence, meaning they are equally important.

Now go read all of the doctrinal statements about the Trinity. Sound familiar?

By the way, the expression can be re-written: 1=1x1.
What happened when Jesus was baptized? The Holy Spirit came and equipped him with power for ministry. The purpose of that ministry was to bring glory to the Father.

I haven't found this illustration ever used before, but I realized it one day while I was sitting in a math class (My mind wanders in weird directions). I hope it helps. I cannot be certain that this illustration is perfect, but I haven't found any errors in it yet. I'll gladly drop it if ever I do find an error, but I think it's more helpful than many of the other illustrations attempted by people.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I figured the Trinity was referring to actions not persons. Christ the Action of Salvation, Holy Spirit the Action of Knowledge, and God the Action of Creation.

What the one spirit does we define as one of the above three.

I wonder why God did send Christ when God did take human form before.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

As regards to the station of Jesus, there are different opinions, mostly because the Bible says different things about Jesus.
The Bible itself, describes Jesus, as a Prophet, who is an image of God, who is in unity with the father, but the father is greater than the son, and the son says and does whatever and however the Father says, but not from Himself.


I think the key to reconcile all these different statements, is the verse in Bible that describes Jesus as an Image of God.

In this analogy, if Jesus is the Mirror, and God is the Sun, the image and the light of the Sun manifested in the Mirror.
That is to say, the attributes of God is manifested in Jesus, being Mirror.
Therefore if we look at the Mirror, we can say that we see the Sun, but that does not mean the Sun moved inside the Mirror.
On the other hand we can say that is a Mirror, but not the Sun, as the Sun is not physically in the Mirror, but its image is.

Likewise Jesus and Holy Spirit are Two Mirrors that reflect the image and attributes of God, but that does not mean God physically moved down in Jesus Body, but His attributes is Manifested in Jesus, like an image in a Mirror.

With this description, there is only One God, but His image has appeared into Two other Mirrors. Therefore there is no contradictions between Old Testament, New Testament or with different statements about Jesus in New Testament, while nothing outside of the Book or recorded traditions is added.

 

[Ouroboros]

I think the trinity is supposed to be understood more in the sense of: physical body (Jesus), autonomous biological processes and functions, i.e. life, (Spirit), and mind/consciousness/will/decision (Father). All one person, but yet three distinct parts of that person. Can't have one without the other.

 

[savagewind]

I think the trinity is supposed to be understood more in the sense of: physical body (Jesus), autonomous biological processes and functions, i.e. life, (Spirit), and mind/consciousness/will/decision (Father). All one person, but yet three distinct parts of that person. Can't have one without the other.

I think the father can exist without the son.

 

[Windwalker]

I think the father can exist without the son.

But he'd be mighty lonely.

Actually, I don't believe so. I think that it is the nature of the "Father" to "be", and that being is self-expression. The "Son" manifests, is the creative expression in form, in Creation, in incarnation. The "Spirit" is active transformative energy of all becoming, that binds and infuses that Emptiness in all that is and becomes.

So, if the Father exists without the Son, than nothing would be.

 

[savagewind]

But he'd be mighty lonely.

Actually, I don't believe so. I think that it is the nature of the "Father" to "be", and that being is self-expression. The "Son" manifests, is the creative expression in form, in Creation, in incarnation. The "Spirit" is active transformative energy of all becoming, that binds and infuses that Emptiness in all that is and becomes.

So, if the Father exists without the Son, than nothing would be.

That's right! Like before creation. No? But I'd be careful to call The Creator "nothing". I try not to.

 

[Windwalker]

That's right! Like before creation. No? But I'd be careful to call The Creator "nothing". I try not to.

People always misunderstand what is meant by "nothing" or "emptiness" in regards to the Absolute. It does not mean a blank, a zero. Nothing simply means no-thing, no object, the formless, as opposed to form. All potential of all that exists is "in" this no-thing-ness. A thing is mainfest object. God, if you will, is the Unmanifest. That's what is meant by nothingness.