The Trinity - What on Earth is it?

[YoursTrue]

You can't drink a solid either (ice) but you put ice and water in the same category (distinct from steam).

If you believe that means God is three persons equal to one, the Bible does not bear that out. Nevertheless, I can't cool a soda with steam. But if you think that means God can be described as three equal parts, that's up to you.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I'm not really a believer -- not in full -- but I can accept the Trinity concept in one way, altered by making "the son" all humans. And this explanation had a young ordained minister look at me with interest and a nod of agreement, but I didn't stipulate the aforementioned alteration. LOL

Equal amounts of red, green, and blue light results in [pure] white light.

For my personal twist -- equal amounts of creation/father, life/son, and God/Holy Spirit makes perfection/heaven on earth.

Trinitarian concepts are not unique to Christianity; we are composed of mind, body and spirit. Greek philosophers envisaged three overlapping realms; the physical, the mental, and the Platonic ideal.

 

[RestlessSoul]

If I go into a steam bath I can't necessarily drink water from the steam unless it changes consistency.

But it’s all H2O

 

[1213]

It is a big subject so let us start with one factor. Son of God.

In Bible son has other meanings than biological also, for example:

He who does righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. To this end the Son of God was revealed: that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whoever is born of God doesn’t commit sin, because his seed remains in him, and he can’t sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are revealed, and the children of the devil. Whoever doesn’t do righteousness is not of God, neither is he who doesn’t love his brother.
1 John 3:7-10

Jesus answered him, “Most certainly, I tell you, unless one is born anew, he can’t see God’s Kingdom.” Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?” Jesus answered, “Most certainly I tell you, unless one is born of water and spirit, he can’t enter into God’s Kingdom. That which is born of the flesh is flesh. That which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Don’t marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born anew.’
John 3:3-7

But as many as received him, to them he gave the right to become God’s children, to those who believe in his name: who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
John 1:12-13

It is the spirit who gives life. The flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and are life.
John 6:63

“For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel. After those days,” says the Lord; “I will put my laws into their mind, I will also write them on their heart. I will be their God, and they will be my people. They will not teach every man his fellow citizen, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for all will know me, from their least to their greatest. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness. I will remember their sins and lawless deeds no more.
Heb. 8:10-12 (Jer. 31:31-34)

 

[soulsurvivor]

I have mentioned in various posts why I parted from Christianity. However, one thing just continues to bug me -the Trinity. It is to me the weirdest thing imaginable, but it is accepted by millions, most of whom I believe are as puzzled as me if they were honest.

It is a big subject so let us start with one factor. Son of God.
Son has biological, legal and social meanings, but what does it mean here? Why would it be considered as making any sense at all?

Actually, among the four Gospels, only Luke calls Jesus the Son of God. In fact, in Luke 3:38, he clarifies to say that this is according to his ancestry through Adam. Luke 23:38
The Ancestors of Jesus
23Jesus was about thirty years old when he began his public ministry.
Jesus was known as the son of Joseph.
Joseph was the son of Heli.
24Heli was the son of Matthat.
Matthat was the son of Levi.
Levi was the son of Melki.
Melki was the son of Jannai.
Jannai was the son of Joseph.
25Joseph was the son of Mattathias.
Mattathias was the son of Amos.
Amos was the son of Nahum.
Nahum was the son of Esli.
Esli was the son of Naggai.
26Naggai was the son of Maath.
Maath was the son of Mattathias.
Mattathias was the son of Semein.
Semein was the son of Josech.
Josech was the son of Joda.
27Joda was the son of Joanan.
Joanan was the son of Rhesa.
Rhesa was the son of Zerubbabel.
Zerubbabel was the son of Shealtiel.
Shealtiel was the son of Neri.
28Neri was the son of Melki.
Melki was the son of Addi.
Addi was the son of Cosam.
Cosam was the son of Elmadam.
Elmadam was the son of Er.
29Er was the son of Joshua.
Joshua was the son of Eliezer.
Eliezer was the son of Jorim.
Jorim was the son of Matthat.
Matthat was the son of Levi.
30Levi was the son of Simeon.
Simeon was the son of Judah.
Judah was the son of Joseph.
Joseph was the son of Jonam.
Jonam was the son of Eliakim.
31Eliakim was the son of Melea.
Melea was the son of Menna.
Menna was the son of Mattatha.
Mattatha was the son of Nathan.
Nathan was the son of David.
32David was the son of Jesse.
Jesse was the son of Obed.
Obed was the son of Boaz.
Boaz was the son of Salmon.h
Salmon was the son of Nahshon.
33Nahshon was the son of Amminadab.
Amminadab was the son of Admin.
Admin was the son of Arni.i
Arni was the son of Hezron.
Hezron was the son of Perez.
Perez was the son of Judah.
34Judah was the son of Jacob.
Jacob was the son of Isaac.
Isaac was the son of Abraham.
Abraham was the son of Terah.
Terah was the son of Nahor.
35Nahor was the son of Serug.
Serug was the son of Reu.
Reu was the son of Peleg.
Peleg was the son of Eber.
Eber was the son of Shelah.
36Shelah was the son of Cainan.
Cainan was the son of Arphaxad.
Arphaxad was the son of Shem.
Shem was the son of Noah.
Noah was the son of Lamech.
37Lamech was the son of Methuselah.
Methuselah was the son of Enoch.
Enoch was the son of Jared.
Jared was the son of Mahalalel.
Mahalalel was the son of Kenan.
38Kenan was the son of Enosh.j
Enosh was the son of Seth.
Seth was the son of Adam.
Adam was the son of God.

The other Gospels just call Jesus 'the Son', not 'Son of God'. Jesus himself, says he is the 'Son of Man'

The Trinity is then Father, Son, Holy Spirit - there is no 'biological' relationship (although the creed states that 'Jesus was begotten from the Father')

This threefold description of the Godhead is not that unique. Hinduism also has three main Gods:
Shiva (the Father)
Vishnu (the Son)
Brahma (the Holy Spirit)

Of course, in Hinduism there is no weird 'three in one' concept which is just a desperate attempt to remain monotheists.

 

[Spice]

Trinitarian concepts are not unique to Christianity; we are composed of mind, body and spirit. Greek philosophers envisaged three overlapping realms; the physical, the mental, and the Platonic ideal.

That is the simplist, and in my mind, the most direct way to view it, but it still has so many debating the concept due to scriptures: Jesus(body) praying to Father(mind) and assuring the Comforter/Holy (Spirit) will come to them. That's one reason I put all mankind in the role of body, not just Jesus, and all of creation as the mind as it holds the law of cause & effect, past, present, future, life, etc. And per scripture is the Word made for man.

 

[oldbadger]

Sorry, .....................................................

That's ok. I forgive you!

...................................................but it's coming to mind that even in the wilderness many rebelled against Moses who was chosen by God to lead His people. Later on, Joshua told the Israelites upon entering the promised land, choose for themselves which God they would worship. And time and again there was rebellion and disobedience. Although there were those who were faithful to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

....................and so they did. So now you can figure out how things went wrong in those times.
The Israelite's God told them, in so many words,'If you keep my laws you will do well. Break them and you will fail'.

How many prophets lamented those situations. 'Lamentations' is a good example.

 

[Niatero]

Can you please explain what the original Trinity doctrine's purpose was?

I am curious how you would define it.

Sometimes it's very hard for me to find ways to explain what I'm thinking that people can understand, but I'll try. It's a long story, but I'll just give you the tail end of it, and you can tell me if you want to know more. In the early centuries some Christian philosophers were trying to explain how Christians could be worshipping Jesus and the God of Abraham without it being two gods. Different ones explained it different ways, and factions formed around them which led to public feuding between Christians. What happened from there is complicated, but the short story is that the emperor called some bishops to agree on an explanation, put it in writing and sign it. That happened twice, resulting in the Nicene creed that churches have to say they believe in to be part of the mainstream. It was mostly designed to exclude some ways of thinking about the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Now today, every time that people try to explain the Trinity, they always explain it in one of the ways that the Nicene creed was designed to exclude. I think that might be partly a result of substituting the Trinity triangle in the place of what the Nicene Creed actually says.

 

[oldbadger]

Actually, among the four Gospels, only Luke calls Jesus the Son of God. In fact, in Luke 3:38, he clarifies to say that this is according to his ancestry through Adam. Luke 23:38

Wrong. Read the first verse of the Gospel of Mark, which claims that Jesus is 'The Son of God'.

Admittedly that phrase got popped in to G-Mark later on.

de
The Ancestors of Jesus
23Jesus was about thirty years old when he began his public ministry.
Jesus was known as the son of Joseph.
Joseph was the son of Heli.

I have read that this line had to be Mother Mary's line, obviously quite different to Matthew's list Jesus's ancestors through Joseph.

In which case Mother Mary was either Mary BartaHeli ??(Eastern Aramaic)? or Mary BendaHeli (?? is this the correct term in Hebrew??) according to whether she was the daughter of a Northern Jew or a Levite.

 

[Spice]

Sometimes it's very hard for me to find ways to explain what I'm thinking that people can understand, but I'll try. It's a long story, but I'll just give you the tail end of it, and you can tell me if you want to know more. In the early centuries some Christian philosophers were trying to explain how Christians could be worshipping Jesus and the God of Abraham without it being two gods. Different ones explained it different ways, and factions formed around them which led to public feuding between Christians. What happened from there is complicated, but the short story is that the emperor called some bishops to agree on an explanation, put it in writing and sign it. That happened twice, resulting in the Nicene creed that churches have to say they believe in to be part of the mainstream. It was mostly designed to exclude some ways of thinking about the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Now today, every time that people try to explain the Trinity, they always explain it in one of the ways that the Nicene creed was designed to exclude. I think that might be partly a result of substituting the Trinity triangle in the place of what the Nicene Creed actually says.

Yes, I think the history behind the Nicene Creed is without issue, but you say people explain the Trinity now as the Nicene Creed was designed to eliminate. So what did the Ecumenical Coincil want to replace these concepts with by composing this creed (in the original wording)?
"Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of one essence with the Father by whom all things were made; who for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man."

Updated wording:
"We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father; God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God; begotten not made, one in being with the Father."

 

[YoursTrue]

But it’s all H2O

True, but that's a chemical combination and there's no package for ice, steam, and water in one. They're separate. Not equal anyway. Amazing thing about science. All three are not water, neither are they all ice or steam. And they're not "equal." Besides, Jesus said the father is greater than he is. Remember? What's your reasoning for that if they're so equal? Seems one (the Son) is lesser than the Father. It depends on what you believe. I believe what Jesus said. He didn't say he was equal to the Father and the holy spirit.

 

[Alien826]

If I go into a steam bath I can't necessarily drink water from the steam unless it changes consistency.

You can sit in a steam bath with a glass of water containing some ice cubes. There you go .... the perfect Trinity, made better only by adding some whiskey to the water.

Oops I just invented a four-in-one god. Sorry, just being humorous, I'll post something more serious shortly.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, I think the history behind the Nicene Creed is without issue, but you say people explain the Trinity now as the Nicene Creed was designed to eliminate. So what did the Ecumenical Coincil want to replace these concepts with by composing this creed (in the original wording)?
"Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of one essence with the Father by whom all things were made; who for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man."

Updated wording:
"We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father; God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God; begotten not made, one in being with the Father."

Wonder why some are so sure that there is one God when Jesus said the Father is greater than he is? He didn't qualify that by saying he was equal in heaven to two other persons each called God. But anyway -- each to his own I suppose at this point.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

Sometimes it's very hard for me to find ways to explain what I'm thinking that people can understand, but I'll try. It's a long story, but I'll just give you the tail end of it, and you can tell me if you want to know more. In the early centuries some Christian philosophers were trying to explain how Christians could be worshipping Jesus and the God of Abraham without it being two gods. Different ones explained it different ways, and factions formed around them which led to public feuding between Christians. What happened from there is complicated, but the short story is that the emperor called some bishops to agree on an explanation, put it in writing and sign it. That happened twice, resulting in the Nicene creed that churches have to say they believe in to be part of the mainstream. It was mostly designed to exclude some ways of thinking about the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Now today, every time that people try to explain the Trinity, they always explain it in one of the ways that the Nicene creed was designed to exclude. I think that might be partly a result of substituting the Trinity triangle in the place of what the Nicene Creed actually says.

How did the Bishops define it?

 

[Alien826]

Sometimes it's very hard for me to find ways to explain what I'm thinking that people can understand, but I'll try. It's a long story, but I'll just give you the tail end of it, and you can tell me if you want to know more. In the early centuries some Christian philosophers were trying to explain how Christians could be worshipping Jesus and the God of Abraham without it being two gods. Different ones explained it different ways, and factions formed around them which led to public feuding between Christians. What happened from there is complicated, but the short story is that the emperor called some bishops to agree on an explanation, put it in writing and sign it. That happened twice, resulting in the Nicene creed that churches have to say they believe in to be part of the mainstream. It was mostly designed to exclude some ways of thinking about the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Now today, every time that people try to explain the Trinity, they always explain it in one of the ways that the Nicene creed was designed to exclude. I think that might be partly a result of substituting the Trinity triangle in the place of what the Nicene Creed actually says.

This similar to my own experience. I ask theologians to explain the Trinity and they give me various analogies, which I think I understand and say something like "so it's like three aspects of a single personality?" and they say, "well no, that's not it". Then I get the Nicene Creed version which makes even less sense to me (for example, it says that God the Father "produced" (Not created? It says "born" which doesn't make a lot of sense for a non sexual being, maybe God kind of divided like an amoeba?) Jesus way back in the dawn of time and gave him the job of creating the universe and they've both been there ever since. Isn't that two gods?

And I know you're going to say "well no, that's not it".

 

[dybmh]

Son has biological, legal and social meanings, but what does it mean here? Why would it be considered as making any sense at all?

While I do not believe in a "trinity" it makes sense to me. Your post, forgive me, sounds antagonistic to the concept. If you have already decided, firmly, that it doesn't make sense, I'm not sure how much time and effort is warranted explaining it. That said, the trinty operates on multiple levels / perspectives. From the most down-to-earth point of view, "The Son" in this case is a prince. Their father, the King, has sent their only-begotten-first-born-son, the heir apparent, to a foreign kingdom, the material world, on an important mission. While in the foreign domain, "The Son", the prince, is a proxy for the King. The prince can negotiate on behalf of their father. They can make and break treaties. They speak on behalf of their father. Anything they say should be considered as if it is coming directly from the King's lips. The King has entrusted all of their authority in the prince. And, highly important for the Christian story, an attack on the prince is considered an act of war perpetrated against the King. There is absolutely no separation in any way between the King and prince, so much so, that one might as well consider the prince = the King. In the past, this notion of the prince as a proxy for tthe King was well known.

That's the basic idea of "the Son" in the trinity as I understand it.

It is to me the weirdest thing imaginable, but it is accepted by millions, most of whom I believe are as puzzled as me if they were honest.

I think, for most, they are not considering it intellectually. The trinity concept reliably produces a feeling. It's emotive. It's not about making sense. It's about cultivating love and gratitude for "the Father" and encouraging sincere repentance as a consequence of the feeling that is produced when considering a Father sacrificing their perfect beloved heir for the sake of the imperfect human creations who insist on rebellion.

I hope this helps to answer your question.

 

[dybmh]

To broaden the discussion a bit, what puzzles me is the idea that God is three and one at the same time. I have never heard an explanation from a believer that makes sense to me.

A 3 sided prism.

 

[Niatero]

Yes, I think the history behind the Nicene Creed is without issue, but you say people explain the Trinity now as the Nicene Creed was designed to eliminate. So what did the Ecumenical Coincil want to replace these concepts with by composing this creed (in the original wording)?
"Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of one essence with the Father by whom all things were made; who for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man."

Updated wording:
"We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father; God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God; begotten not made, one in being with the Father."

At least one of the bishops was very anxious to exclude any idea of God and Jesus being the same person, and he resisted the idea that they are composed of the same substance. When the emperor wanted to add the Greek word that is translated as “same substance,” it was only because he thought that word did not have to mean “same substance.”

 

[Niatero]

How did the Bishops define it?

The same God but not the same person. Not the same person in different forms, and not different ways of experiencing the same person. One of the most influential bishops would not have signed it without that agreement, to exclude all ways of thinking of God and Jesus as the same person.

 

[Niatero]

This similar to my own experience. I ask theologians to explain the Trinity and they give me various analogies, which I think I understand and say something like "so it's like three aspects of a single personality?" and they say, "well no, that's not it". Then I get the Nicene Creed version which makes even less sense to me (for example, it says that God the Father "produced" (Not created? It says "born" which doesn't make a lot of sense for a non sexual being, maybe God kind of divided like an amoeba?) Jesus way back in the dawn of time and gave him the job of creating the universe and they've both been there ever since. Isn't that two gods?

And I know you're going to say "well no, that's not it".

Exactly.