A Model of the Trinity--in a Basketball Arena?

I have a lot of trouble with the Trinity doctrine, since I think there are some N.T. passages, such as Rev. 1:1, that are very awkward if one reads them in a Trinitarian context. (Why would God have to give the Revelation to Jesus if Jesus already was God? Hmm?)However, conceptualizing the Trinity is easier for me than it might be for somebody else. I don't like the idea that some seem to have: Believe it, because the Bible says it's so; and if you don't believe it, you'll go to hell. So what is my conception of the Trinity?It goes something like this: If you've been watching the NCAA Championships or NBA games a lot lately, you probably know that most large basketball arenas have a large, four- or eight-sided scoreboard hung over the center of the court. This permits fans, the media, etc. to easily keep track of scores, time, statistics, etc. while the game is going on. However, this device is usually invisible or at least awkward to see for the players and officials on the court. For this reason, there are usually auxiliary scoreboards and timers placed at each end of the court or somewhere else that can be easily seen by the players. Yet during the game, if there is some question about the score or the time remaining, announcers will usually refer to the devices collectively as "the scoreboard," or "the clock," as if there were only one display. To me, this seems to resemble the Trinity--even though there are more than one person, they are collectively referred to as one.I prefer this analogy to the egg (yolk, white, shell) analogy, since without one of those things, you don't really have an egg, whereas if one or more (but not all) of the scoreboard displays is removed, you still have "the scoreboard." (I won't even bother comparing it to water at certain pressures supposedly being simultaneously liquid, solid, and gas.)Unless there's a better place for this, I guess it should be in the Bible Study thread. However, my point is not to debate whether I think the Trinity is "true"; as indicated above, I have reservations about it. My point is whether it is conceivable using objects or phenomena that are or can be experienced in everyday life.

I think that Faith/Belief would be a better spot.Im a bit unclear as to what you DO want to discuss, however.
Enlighten me!

I think the Trinity probably has to be taken on a lot of faith, so the Faith/Belief forum would probably work, so long as responses don't have to be completely in a faith or belief context (i.e., other physical models and/or representations, artistic or otherwise, can be introduced into the discussion).

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Tell me a bit about your religious background. There are differing views and beliefs from, say, Jehovahs Witnesses than there are from Oneness Pentacostals. Lets see if we can define our beliefs, ideas from what we have learned, and conceptualization based on other scriptures or based on theological philosophies in general. I always like the Sun/Light/Heat analogy myself. Although all three characteristics come from one source, they are all dinstinct proprietary characteristics (characters?) of that source.

My grandmother and I "studied" with Jehovah's Witnesses (I also had friends in school who were Witnesses), so my skepticism about the Trinity comes from their rejection of it, although I never joined the movement and stopped studying with them years ago (when I realized the world was not on the brink of ending, as well as for other reasons). Others in my family are Baptists or members of other churches with a more orthodox (small "o") view of the Trinity.I'm not familiar with the "Oneness Pentecostal" or LDS views of the Trinity, though I believe that while Mormons claim to believe in the Trinity, their understanding of it is quite different from that of mainline Protestants and Catholics. I also believe the Worldwide Church of God (the Armstrong group) rejects the Trinity, though I think they teach Jesus is God.It's also my understanding that Orthodox (big "O") Christians believe the Holy Spirit comes from the Father only, though through the Son, while Catholics and Protestants believe the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son. I have no idea as to what the real-world distinction between the Catholic and Orthodox beliefs is or means, but I guess it was enough to cause the first major schism in Christianity.

This website has intrigued me lately. While the logic is far from impecable, the apologists here at least use some logic in their arguments.This message has been edited by Phat, 03-21-2006 03:25 PM

I am not sure I can accurately describe the function of the trinity, but I can tell you I believe I can feel the Holy Spirit.It's a commom mistake to think that Jesus was in the form of a God when here on earth. What made His venture so amazing, and Him the only real true Christian (even though He was Jewish) is that He was sent to earth as a man. He had to suffer just like we do, and be forced into the same temptations as us.I mean if He was God, then why did He have to go and pray everynight?Anyone of us may be able to attain the same things as He did here on earth, if we could live our lives the way He did. This may not be possible, but you can try. I think it is a matter of heart.

It makes more sense to me that the Holy Spirit comes from God rather than from God and Jesus...since the Holy Spirit originated with the Father anyway.
Two other concepts that may pertain to this discussion are the concepts of Modalism and Tritheism. Modalism is the same thing as Oneness Pentacostalism.
Tritheism is said to be one of the errors in the Mormon religion...(By the Christian apologists)Personally, in my soul and spirit, I know, or perceive that God is One, yet I never give the intellectual definitions of Him much thought.Except when someone says that He is a "she"! (Jar knows what I'm talking about!)This message has been edited by Phat, 03-26-2006 04:24 AM

---

Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart, and through all human hearts. This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years. Even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained; and even in the best of all hearts, there remains a small corner of evil. --Alexander Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago

Assuming the Revelation is to be taken as accurate and literally true, the problem of God giving it to Jesus if Jesus was in fact God stands, since the Revelation was given long after Jesus returned to heaven. He was no longer "only a man."

Well, I am not a literlist. But I think you might be reading that wrong?

quote:

---

1The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, 2who testifies to everything he saw”that is, the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ. 3Blessed is the one who reads the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear it and take to heart what is written in it, because the time is near.

---

The revelation was Jesus. It was then given to John by an angel.
"The revelation OF Jesus" not "to" Jesus.Or the revelation was the future, and then God gave it to Jesus, who gave it to John by an angel.It may be described that way so we can understand it. If God and Jesus exist in a demension where there is no time, it would be hard to describe it.Plus Jesus mentioned that no-one nows the times and dates except the father, so there was things that God knew, that the Son didn't.

Interesting.I could see God giving the revelation through Jesus to the Holy Spirit who then gave it to John.I never take a lot of time attempting to understand Revelation unless that same Spirit gives me unction to do so.One interesting thing about Revelation, however, is this: We know that God has never died except in the realms of human reasoning and imagination. JW's believe that Jesus was the first created thing made by God. Orthodox Christianity asserts that Jesus was with God in the Beginning.Assuming that God has an omnipotant mind in which nothing need be added, the concept of a human character infused with the Spirit who was fully human and yet fully God would be an original thought and not a bright idea.

The problem is that the human mind cant even really encompass large distances, sizes, ect. much less infinite things

quote:

---

The problem is that the human mind cant even really encompass large distances, sizes, ect. much less infinite things

---

I can encompass "three." If God is infinite, is He more than three--with three merely being the number revealed to us so far?Some have conceived of God as having the ability to be anywhere in time. Can God move back and forth in time, or must He move along with the rest of us? If He can move back and forth in time, the concept of the "self-resurrection" of Jesus becomes at least plausible, assuming that His time travel would allow Him to occupy two (or more) places in the physical universe at the same time. OTOH, the first verse of Revelation, in which God (not "God the Father," although Trinitarians must interpret it that way) gives the Revelation to Jesus Christ (who then gives it to an angel, who in turn gives it to John), seems hard to square with even a time-traveler God concept of the Trinity. Also, does God go from being the "good-guy" Jesus-God of the New Testament to the frequently vengeful and wrathful Jehovah-God of the Old Testament--and back again?

He was never only a man. No man on earth could have lived a life like He did. He was fully a God and fully a human. A perfect man as well as a perfect God. He had all the power in His hands, but he never revealed it in its true glory. He had all the needs we have, but never sinned.