I have long wondered just what the notion of a trinity was supposed to explain if the common understanding requires that the three are one. I also would ask what the explanation is for the pregnancy experienced by Mary {wife of Joseph} if it is the case that the trinity are all the same since this would make Jesus the father of himself.
I imagine that faith and belief forum would be suitable for this topic.
"The world is so exquisite, with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there's little good evidence. Far better, it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look Death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides." - Carl Sagan, Billions and Billions
I have long wondered just what the notion of a trinity was supposed to explain if the common understanding requires that the three are one. I also would ask what the explanation is for the pregnancy experienced by Mary {wife of Joseph} if it is the case that the trinity are all the same since this would make Jesus the father of himself.
I imagine that faith and belief forum would be suitable for this topic.
Hey sidelined! :) I'll give you my personal definition and also several definitions gleaned from various apologetic websites.
Tritheism is the teaching that the Godhead is really three separate beings forming three separate gods. This erring view is often misplaced for the doctrine of the Trinity which states that there is but one God in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Modalism is the error that there is only one person in the Godhead who manifests himself in three forms or manners: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Personally, I am unsure whether or not I am a Trinitarian or not.
The Nicene Creed:
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, of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets. We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.
Imagine that you were outside playing football. You looked up and saw the Sun which was 93 million miles away. The sunlight was shining all over, and the heat was noticeable. Although these are three separate attributes, they originate from one source.
The plurality study seemed to be a helpful link for those who ascribe to Biblical Inerrant explanations.
Don't try and logically pin this stuff down.
IMHO, God is a Spirit (or a vibe) and is perceived not through definitions but by characteristics.
Edited by Phat, : clarification
Convictions are very different from intentions. Convictions are something God gives us that we have to do. Intentions are things that we ought to do, but we never follow through with them. * * * * * * * * * * "Atheism is so senseless. When I look at the solar system. I see the earth at the right distance from the sun to receive the proper amounts of heat and light. This did not happen by chance."- --Sir Isaac Newton
Imagine that you were outside playing football. You looked up and saw the Sun which was 93 million miles away. The sunlight was shining all over, and the heat was noticeable. Although these are three separate attributes, they originate from one source.
But the attributes of distance, light, and heat are phenomena attributable to the sun and not the sun itself. If we are to be consistent then the attributes must all add up to being the same thing. If Jesus is also God/Holy spirit, then we still are at a loss as to how he can be father to himself. Indeed one wonders how the physical manifestation of flesh inherent in pregnancy can be achieved through that which is non physical to begin with. What is the specific attribute of the Holy Spirit that makes it possible to impregnate a human female?
Well if potential was all that was required I would be the father of so many more children I would be subject to manhunts on a regular basis so perhaps something more substantial is in order.
I also would ask what the explanation is for the pregnancy experienced by Mary {wife of Joseph} if it is the case that the trinity are all the same since this would make Jesus the father of himself.
The thing I would like know is when did Jesus become the Son? Was He always the son or was that status achieved at His incarnation? John indicated that pre flesh, Jesus was the Word. So it's possible that Jesus' status in the God-head up to His incarnation was Word and not Son. Now if that is true then there was no Father until the Incarnation(one cannot be a father before one has a child). There was just "God the spirit" and "God the word" - a "Dinity". Which leads me to conclude that at the incarnation( some may say at Nicene) God simultaneously became Son and Father and the Trinity was born - two became three.
If I am wrong and the Trinity has always existed, what's the purpose of having a father and a son, what distinguishes the father from the son?
I have long wondered just what the notion of a trinity was supposed to explain if the common understanding requires that the three are one. I also would ask what the explanation is for the pregnancy experienced by Mary {wife of Joseph} if it is the case that the trinity are all the same since this would make Jesus the father of himself.
I have never attempted to explain the virgin birth. I am not even going to touch it.
If you scroll down about two thirds of the page you'll easily find the first three chapters of book IV. Beyond Personality: Or First Steps In The Doctrine Of The Trinity
1. Making and Begetting
2. The Three-Personal God
3. Time And Beyond Time
If you have read Lewis already then forgive me. The chapters are not long, but are very readable for an intelligence such as yours. Good sound theology.
I don't know how available the link is... but it was up as of this reply.
A sample from that suggested reading:
It is quite true that if we took Christ's advice we should soon be living in a happier world. You need not even go as far as Christ. If we did all that Plato or Aristotle or Confucius told us, we should get on a great deal better than we do. And so what? We never have followed the advice of the great teachers. Why are we likely to begin now? Why are we more likely to follow Christ than any of the others? Because he is the best moral teacher? But that makes it even less likely that we shall follow him. If we cannot take the elementary lessons, is it likely we are going to take the most advanced one? If Christianity only means one more bit of good advice, then Christianity is of no importance. There has been no lack of good advice for the last four thousand years. A bit more makes no difference. But as soon as you look at any real Christian writings, you find that they are talking about something quite different from this popular religion. They say that Christ is the Son of God (whatever that means). They say that those who give Him their confidence can also become Sons of God (whatever that means). They say that His death saved us from our sins (whatever that means). There is no good complaining that these statements are difficult Christianity claims to be telling us about another world, about something behind the world we can touch and hear and see. You may think the claim false; but if it were true, what it tells us would be bound to be difficult-at least as difficult as modern Physics, and for the same reason.
I also would ask what the explanation is for the pregnancy experienced by Mary {wife of Joseph} if it is the case that the trinity are all the same since this would make Jesus the father of himself.
sidelined; You are aware of yourself. You can't say this awareness happened on any one day. As long as you have been of a certain age, you have had a mental image of yourself. It may be flawed, incomplete, etc.
Jesus is God's mental image of Himself. It is an image so perfect and complete that it is of the exact same essence or 'being' as the original. Jesus did not come AFTER God; God always knew what He (God) was, whereas we have to learn and grow and look in the mirror :) to get an idea of ourselves.
Yet, Jesus only has existance becuase of God, so He is the SON, the offspring, the Word/Idea of God...He reflects God, and not vice versa. The Will of the Father is the Will of the Son.
In time, the Word/Idea/Image of God was put into a human body, to continue in reflecting the Will of the Father in ways that humans could understand.
Jesus is God's mental image of Himself. It is an image so perfect and complete that it is of the exact same essence or 'being' as the original. Jesus did not come AFTER God; God always knew what He (God) was, whereas we have to learn and grow and look in the mirror to get an idea of ourselves.
Just where in the bible does it make this assertion? Where is there scripture stating that Jesus was "God's mental image of himself" ?
Yet, Jesus only has existance becuase of God, so He is the SON, the offspring, the Word/Idea of God...He reflects God, and not vice versa. The Will of the Father is the Will of the Son.
Then if he had no existence prior to being born then what do we make of John 8:58?
Jesus said unto them, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am."
Now we have the Son stating that he was there {before Abraham} before he was born so his existence must in someway be coincident with God. This negates God being his father though.
We also have not established how the Holy spirit works into any of this nor how and why it was the holy spirit part of the trinity that performed the impregnating of Mary.
We also have not established how the Holy spirit works into any of this nor how and why it was the holy spirit part of the trinity that performed the impregnating of Mary.
OK, side, one thing at a time. I will get to this in a minute.
Just where in the bible does it make this assertion? Where is there scripture stating that Jesus was "God's mental image of himself" ?
There is no mention of Trinity in the Bible. There are certain things that don't make sense, or allude to there being a mystery...but all of our current guesses are no more than guesses...they are possible ways of explaining the anomolies in Jesus' speech, like the one you mentioned ; 'Before Abraham was, I Am'. The Trinity is to my knowledge the one guess that fits all of the known 'evidence' without falling apart at another end. It requires, as with the other theological guesses, a leap of faith. It is worthwhile to note that other guesses/doctrines have also sprung from the same Biblical 'evidence' but in every case, some application of human thought is needed to fill in the gaps. You just won't find a clear picture in the Bible, or any type of 'solution' spelled out.
Then if he had no existence prior to being born then what do we make of John 8:58?
I am not sure if you read my post right. I didn't say Jesus had no existance prior to being born. Trust me, when the church developed the doctrine of the Trinity, they didnt skip over John 8. I said that Jesus HAS NO existance outside of God, not that He didnt exist before He was born as a man.
Just think about it; does your mental image of yourself exist if you don't exist? Are you its 'creator' or did it create you? Now, I don't want you to go thinking that God created Jesus, in theological circles that's incorrect; because it means God used 'stuff', that He planned to 'make' Jesus. It is more like Jesus HAS to be there just because God is there. God's image of Himself is eternal, having no beginning or end as He has no beginning or end. If The Word/Image disappeared, it would mean God disappeared, but the Word could not have existed without God. Get it?
Now, it is only at a certain point in time that the Word was put into a physical body...Jesus was born, BUT before Abraham existed, He Is. He does not say 'I Was' because that is a finite term. It is past tense. God has no past or future, all is NOW, which is a big clue in the Bible for how the Trinity came about as our 'solution'.
After all of that, the person of the Holy Spirit is simpler to understand, but more complex in a way also. The Spirit is a force, a power, a conduit. He is the means by which God accomplishes something...God's Will in Action. God willed Jesus to become Man. His Spirit is the Force which made it happen. There can be a misunderstanding that the Spirit of God was put into Mary; that is easy to picture...half man, half God. But, no, Jesus was put into Mary, and the Spirit is what put Him there. 'By the power of the Holy Spirit, Jesus became man'. The wording of the creed is very careful and precise. So, we have the Power of God which comes out of Him, (proceeds from Him). It can't exist without God, and it is not a seperate Being. God uses His power all over the place, He sends out His Spirit, so to speak, but the Spirit does not divide into a million tiny Gods, it is all His Spirit, it is all God, omnipresent, and indivisible. Yet the Spirit is distinct from God. It is God being in all places as a Power, yet not splitting Himself up.
There is no mention of Trinity in the Bible. There are certain things that don't make sense, or allude to there being a mystery...but all of our current guesses are no more than guesses...they are possible ways of explaining the anomolies in Jesus' speech, like the one you mentioned ; 'Before Abraham was, I Am'.
But why do we assume offhand that the person called Jesus need to be explained by outlandish assumptions such as trinity before eliminating the more likely but mundane possibility that he was not other than some outstanding philosopher of his time. {This is of course assuming he even had an existence rather than being a construct of the apostles imaginations.}
The Trinity is to my knowledge the one guess that fits all of the known 'evidence' without falling apart at another end
It falls apart right off the hop because it requires that we assert 3 different items to in fact be the same item without explanation for how we can justify it. As you state the bible does not mention such nor does it lend any explanation to this assertion. We can, of course , construct a scenario such as this, but only by assuming properties of the supernatural to exist as a premise and a conclusion to the tales in the bible. Anomalies of speech can easily be explained if we consider the possibility that the apostles themselves constructed the tales in order to form a religion that allowed them to express their opinions on how they thought philosophically about the world in light of their own experiences. That it became popular as a belief is not surprising since it contains the notion of absolution for crimes that would allow even those most heinous actions to be ultimately redeemed before death took people into the afterlife they also assumed existed.
It is worthwhile to note that other guesses/doctrines have also sprung from the same Biblical 'evidence' but in every case, some application of human thought is needed to fill in the gaps. You just won't find a clear picture in the Bible, or any type of 'solution' spelled out.
But if it was a construct of the imaginations of the apostles would this be incapable of forming a solution? {Admittedly not one shared by believers}
I am not sure if you read my post right. I didn't say Jesus had no existance prior to being born. Trust me, when the church developed the doctrine of the Trinity, they didnt skip over John 8. I said that Jesus HAS NO existance outside of God, not that He didnt exist before He was born as a man.
Where in the bible is it asserted that jesus had an existence before birth? Indeed what is the definition of existence prior to birth anyway? Before you were born what was your existence?
Just think about it; does your mental image of yourself exist if you don't exist? Are you its 'creator' or did it create you?
Neither I think. Since my mental image is a mishmash of memories feelings and body sensations which are a construction of brain in its physical biology it behooves me to point out that it can neither exist prior to my existence nor is it something under my control exactly.
Now, I don't want you to go thinking that God created Jesus, in theological circles that's incorrect; because it means God used 'stuff', that He planned to 'make' Jesus. It is more like Jesus HAS to be there just because God is there. God's image of Himself is eternal, having no beginning or end as He has no beginning or end.
This seems to be going further afield than the OP requires however let us examine this. Why does Jesus HAVE to be there in this instance other than to support the case for God which is circular reasoning? What allows us to assert the nature of God according to things {mental image ,temporal notion of eternity etc [ themselves illusory ] } when these are attributes of the physical world?
Now, it is only at a certain point in time that the Word was put into a physical body...Jesus was born, BUT before Abraham existed, He Is. He does not say 'I Was' because that is a finite term. It is past tense. God has no past or future, all is NOW, which is a big clue in the Bible for how the Trinity came about as our 'solution'.
Exactly how do you define a NOW without reference to a past or a future Hmm...? I understand that you wish to expand the notion that God has ALL time at his immediate disposal but again is an assertion that creates further problems. What is meant by an action on God's part if time is something that does not apply to him? What is the meaning of a creation without a past or future tense? However this is starting to extend beyond the scope of the original OP.
After all of that, the person of the Holy Spirit is simpler to understand, but more complex in a way also. The Spirit is a force, a power, a conduit. He is the means by which God accomplishes something...God's Will in Action.
Again we have the temporal quality of action that is not yet established in a God that does not operate in time so words like accomplishment and so forth are pretty much meaningless until we have established the notion of time as relates to God.
God willed Jesus to become Man. His Spirit is the Force which made it happen. There can be a misunderstanding that the Spirit of God was put into Mary; that is easy to picture...half man, half God
Now we introduce other difficulties into the fray.Force is normally defined as mass acceleration yet we are not dealing here with physical quantities so I would ask you to define what Force entails here?
But, no, Jesus was put into Mary, and the Spirit is what put Him there. 'By the power of the Holy Spirit, Jesus became man'. The wording of the creed is very careful and precise. So, we have the Power of God which comes out of Him, (proceeds from Him). It can't exist without God, and it is not a seperate Being. God uses His power all over the place, He sends out His Spirit, so to speak, but the Spirit does not divide into a million tiny Gods, it is all His Spirit, it is all God, omnipresent, and indivisible. Yet the Spirit is distinct from God. It is God being in all places as a Power, yet not splitting Himself up
Since the egg in Mary's body required sperm in order for her to become pregnant I cannot see how your above explanation applies to the problem of creating a flesh and blood human through the assertion of the interaction of God and his Holy Spirit no matter how convoluted the claim since we are still left incapable of bridging the physical and non physical regardless of mere assertions to the contrary.
Since the egg in Mary's body required sperm in order for her to become pregnant I cannot see how your above explanation applies to the problem of creating a flesh and blood human through the assertion of the interaction of God and his Holy Spirit no matter how convoluted the claim since we are still left incapable of bridging the physical and non physical regardless of mere assertions to the contrary.
Sorry for the copout, but theology doesn't deal much with genetics. It is the same as asking how putting Jesus' spirit back in his dead body could stop Him from dying of old age...I don't know. I can explain the idea of a Trinity, but not the physical 'miracle'. Why could God not just create life without sperm?
If you want to ask about where the Trinity doctrine came from and how it works, obviously you have to throw out all of the supposing this and supposing that about the apostles.
The doctors and theologians who formulated the trinity doctrine did not ask such questions. They assumed, and believed, that they were dealing with facts. If you doubt the facts, you have no reason to worry about the trinity, and understanding it is not going to prove that the Bible is a fact.
So I suggest understanding it from the point of view of people who; 1. assume the apostles told the truth, 2. assume Jesus existed, 3. that he spoke in ways we can't understand, and 4. that he meant something by his words that we should figure out.
Where in the bible is it asserted that jesus had an existence before birth? Indeed what is the definition of existence prior to birth anyway? Before you were born what was your existence?
You already know this...John 8 'Before Abraham came to be, I am'. Obviously Jesus was born after Abraham, right?
And of course, John 1 'In the beginning was the Word, etc, 'and the Word became flesh'.
If you want to ask our questions again without the part about the apostles inventing a religion, I will try again to answer.
Neither I think. Since my mental image is a mishmash of memories feelings and body sensations which are a construction of brain in its physical biology it behooves me to point out that it can neither exist prior to my existence nor is it something under my control exactly.
Here, I asked you not to think too much about being a 'creator'. All I am saying is that before you came into existance, you had no mental image of yourself. In that sense it depends on you. If God had no beginning, His image is likewise eternal.
You already know this...John 8 'Before Abraham came to be, I am'. Obviously Jesus was born after Abraham, right?
And of course, John 1 'In the beginning was the Word, etc, 'and the Word became flesh'.
Well, John 8 has been interpreted by 'before abraham, I am '(in priority). Different translations come up with different senses. The 'in priority' translation makes better sense.. Of the other points about I AM when it ocmes to time sense, the arians believe he was just responding the the asserstion that he wasn't old enough to have seen abraham.. . One point.. the 'ego emini' being used is not the 'divine' 'ego emini on ho' that was used by God.
As for 'Logos', I think the gnostics got it right there. Logos is talking about the 'wisdom of god', not god itself. That is the concept that was brought to the table by Philo Judas when he melded the "Logos" of the greeks with jewish concepts in about 30-40 ad. If you read John in a non-tritarian terms, Jesus is "the one sent".. the wisdom of god. Not God.
I personally think that the Trinity is a way to keep the idea of Jesus being God,and the 'god is one'. I think it is hard to explain because it just doesn't make sense.
I personally think that the Trinity is a way to keep the idea of Jesus being God,and the 'god is one'. I think it is hard to explain because it just doesn't make sense.
It makes sense to me...the Bible puts forth the idea of Jesus being God. If the Bible was just a teeny little bit clearer about if he was or wasn't or if there were now two gods, or where they came from or how its possible...anything! we wouldnt need to try to make Jesus God and yet have One God. The Trinity is a sensible answer to a problem that might not even exist outside of the Bible.
the wisdom of god. Not God
If it is not God, what is it? I think you will find my version incorporates this just as well...I don't care if you call it logos, idea, word, wisdom... int the Trinity IT IS God.
™ Version 4.0 Beta
