Can someone explain the Trinity please...

[kepha31]

Can someone explain the Trinity please...

Trinity is mythical and false; it needs no explanation.

Regards

The best ANALOGY we have to understanding the Trinity is the human family. We have to resort to analogy because the Trinity is a mystery, meaning It transcends reason, but that does not mean It conflicts with reason either. Same with "God" or Jehovah or whatever name you want to use, we give God names in spite of the fact that I-Am-Who-Am is not a name, because to give God a name is to define Something that cannot be defined, or he would not be God. But I digress...
Asserting that the "Trinity is mythical and false" is a declaration that you do not accept scripture, and blindly reject any explanation before it is even presented. But I would challenge you to open your mind just by a little crack.

The human family is the closest analogy that mankind will ever come to concretely understanding the Blessed Trinity. paarsurrey, in order to grasp this simple concept, you have to understand what a family is. A mommy and a daddy have a baby. That is the basic universal family unit found in all cultures. Muslims have a different concept of family, which is why The Trinity is so difficult for them to understand.

The creeds teach that while there is one God, He exists in three distinct persons. The bible, on the other hand, reveals that man is made in the 'image of God'. From these two truths, therefore, we can acknowledge that the complete image of God is found in the Triune understanding of Him.

This understanding of His Triune nature is reflected by the human family whose personal relationships approach the likeness of the Trinity.

There are multiple demonstrations of this truth. Consider the unity of the Trinity which is reflected in the unity of the family. Or the "family of persons" which is found in both. The persons of the Trinity share the 'same substance ' while a human family becomes one flesh: wife with husband and parents with children.

There is also another element in the Trinity that lends itself to human likeness. The Nicene Creed professes this about the Trinity: "We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life who proceeds from the Father and the Son." In Catholic theology, the Holy Spirit is said to proceed from the will of both the Father and the Son, or in other words, through the activity which they engage in, otherwise known as "love".

The Holy Spirit is poured forth through the exchange of love between the Father and the Son. This is why perhaps Jesus says to the Apostles: " Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you." (John 16:7)

In the eternal economy of the Trinity, therefore, a person 'proceeds' from the love between two other persons. And so, the Holy Spirit is love 'proceeding' or 'coming from' the first two persons of the Blessed Trinity.

The human family has a rather striking parallel to this dynamic. The ultimate act of intimacy in a marriage mirrors the eternal exchange of love between the first two persons of the Trinity.

And like the eternal or continual procession of the Holy Spirit in the Trinity, the act of love between a man and a woman causes a 'procession' of another human person (i.e. the birth of a child).

The family is a perfectly logical analogy to the Trinity. Calling it mythical and false is just fist shaking and I pray that God heals your anger.

 

[paarsurrey]

Mythical it may be, and that's fine, since a myth is an illustration of truth.
But false? There's nothing about the Trinity that is incongruent with what the church has believed about God since its beginning. And since theology is the province of the church, it's the church that determines what God is or is not doctrinally.

That is not correct. Jesus did not establish any Church, so Church has no authority to invent creeds in the name of Jesus. Whenever Jesus went to pray he went to a Jewish temple.
Trinity is fallacious .

Regards

 

[Katzpur]

That is not correct. Jesus did not establish any Church.

He said He was going to. Why do you think He didn't?

Trinity is fallacious.

Well that goes without saying, but it has nothing to do with whether Jesus established a church or not.

 

[Katzpur]

Asserting that the "Trinity is mythical and false" is a declaration that you do not accept scripture, and blindly reject any explanation before it is even presented. But I would challenge you to open your mind just by a little crack.

Actually, it's not really a declaration that you don't accept scripture. It's really more of a declaration that you don't accept the 4th and 5th century creeds.

The human family is the closest analogy that mankind will ever come to concretely understanding the Blessed Trinity. paarsurrey, in order to grasp this simple concept, you have to understand what a family is. A mommy and a daddy have a baby. That is the basic universal family unit found in all cultures. Muslims have a different concept of family, which is why The Trinity is so difficult for them to understand.

I'm pretty sure Muslim families have mommies and daddies and babies, too. I totally understand family, and I even understand (and for the most part agree with) you analogy. But I still don't accept the creeds.

The creeds teach that while there is one God, He exists in three distinct persons. The bible, on the other hand, reveals that man is made in the 'image of God'. From these two truths, therefore, we can acknowledge that the complete image of God is found in the Triune understanding of Him.

I think the creeds teach far more than that, but I have never been able to figure out just how they actually clarify what the Bible has to say.

In the eternal economy of the Trinity, therefore, a person 'proceeds' from the love between two other persons. And so, the Holy Spirit is love 'proceeding' or 'coming from' the first two persons of the Blessed Trinity.

The human family has a rather striking parallel to this dynamic. The ultimate act of intimacy in a marriage mirrors the eternal exchange of love between the first two persons of the Trinity.

And like the eternal or continual procession of the Holy Spirit in the Trinity, the act of love between a man and a woman causes a 'procession' of another human person (i.e. the birth of a child).

This is where I think your analogy starts to fall apart. The creeds would have you believe that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost have all three existed forever. The child in your analogy most definitely did not. There was a time when the child did not exist. I'm pretty sure you don't believe there was a time when the Holy Ghost/Holy Spirit did not exist.

The family is a perfectly logical analogy to the Trinity.

Well, it's better than some analogies I've heard, but it's flawed nevertheless.

Calling it mythical and false is just fist shaking.

Personally, I think that "mythical" is a kind of an odd adjective to use in describing the Trinity. Now "false" -- that's another matter. Still, I can assure you that even though I believe it's a false doctrine, I don't go in for anger or fist shaking over differences of opinion regarding doctrine.

 

[kepha31]

Actually, it's not really a declaration that you don't accept scripture. It's really more of a declaration that you don't accept the 4th and 5th century creeds.

I'm pretty sure Muslim families have mommies and daddies and babies, too. I totally understand family, and I even understand (and for the most part agree with) you analogy. But I still don't accept the creeds.

I think the creeds teach far more than that, but I have never been able to figure out just how they actually clarify what the Bible has to say.

This is where I think your analogy starts to fall apart. The creeds would have you believe that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost have all three existed forever. The child in your analogy most definitely did not. There was a time when the child did not exist. I'm pretty sure you don't believe there was a time when the Holy Ghost/Holy Spirit did not exist.

Well, it's better than some analogies I've heard, but it's flawed nevertheless.

An analogy is not a perfect similarity, it is a comparison. The birth of a human child is comparable to the eternal economy of the existence of the Holy Spirit. He proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Trinity is a mystery, not a math problem.

a·nal·o·gy
əˈnaləjē/
noun

1. a comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification.
   "an analogy between the workings of nature and those of human societies"
   • a correspondence or partial similarity.
     "the syndrome is called deep dysgraphia because of its analogy to deep dyslexia"
   • a thing that is comparable to something else in significant respects.
     "works of art were seen as an analogy for works of nature"

God is Family, and if He were not Family, then humans are not made in the image and likeness of God, and if that is true, humans could not love.

 

[Katzpur]

The Trinity is a mystery, not a math problem.

I'll agree with you on that. It's a mystery alright.

 

[Mountain_Climber]

. He said He was going to. Why do you think He didn't?

Well that goes without saying, but it has nothing to do with whether Jesus established a church or not.

The real question is, 'Exactly what church did Jesus establish?'

I know you know that the church is God's spiritual house (aka, the spiritual house of Israel), per 1 Peter 2:5 "Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ."

I know you also know that Paul, like Peter, also identified the true church as a spiritual house, per Hebrews 12:22-24 "But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel."

You have to then also know that Ephesians 2:19-22 is the church and that it is then the church that is the temple of God.

Ephesians 2:19-22
19 "Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit."

So please explain why you mistake the church for that which you physically see with fleshly eyes?

2 Corinthians 5:7 "(For we walk by faith, not by sight"

2 Corinthians 4:17-18 "For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory; While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal."

 

[Katzpur]

The real question is, 'Exactly what church did Jesus establish?'

He established His Church. At least that's what He told Peter and the other Apostles He was going to do. And when He did, He organized it according to a very specific pattern described by Paul in Ephesians 4:11-15, which states:

"And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ..."

So please explain why you mistake the church for that which you physically see with fleshly eyes?

Did I say anything about a church I physically see with fleshly eyes (whatever fleshly eyes might be)?

 

[Mountain_Climber]

He established His Church. At least that's what He told Peter and the other Apostles He was going to do. And when He did, He organized it according to a very specific pattern described by Paul in Ephesians 4:11-15, which states:

"And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ..."
Did I say anything about a church I physically see with fleshly eyes (whatever fleshly eyes might be)?

The point remains as stated here: 2 Corinthians 4:17-18 "For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory; While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal."

So is that you see with your physical eyes really Christ's church? Yes or no?

If you answer yes, the how can you be sure?

Mind you I am not disputing that we can see the church in part in the flesh in the Bible but can we today? It seems no one does not err from time to time in what they teach and the church we see in the Bible never did that.

 

[Mountain_Climber]

An analogy is not a perfect similarity, it is a comparison. The birth of a human child is comparable to the eternal economy of the existence of the Holy Spirit. He proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Trinity is a mystery, not a math problem.

a·nal·o·gy
əˈnaləjē/
noun

1. a comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification.
   "an analogy between the workings of nature and those of human societies"
   • a correspondence or partial similarity.
     "the syndrome is called deep dysgraphia because of its analogy to deep dyslexia"
   • a thing that is comparable to something else in significant respects.
     "works of art were seen as an analogy for works of nature"

God is Family, and if He were not Family, then humans are not made in the image and likeness of God, and if that is true, humans could not love.

How then do you harmonize that to the following statement made by Paul:

1 Corinthians 11:7 "For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man."

Does that not harmonize better with the "our image and our likeness" of Genesis 1:26?

 

[Katzpur]

The point remains as stated here: 2 Corinthians 4:17-18 "For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory; While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal."

So is that you see with your physical eyes really Christ's church? Yes or no?

If you answer yes, the how can you be sure?

Mind you I am not disputing that we can see the church in part in the flesh in the Bible but can we today? It seems no one does not err from time to time in what they teach and the church we see in the Bible never did that.

If you think I'm talking about some building, you're mistaken.

 

[Mountain_Climber]

If you think I'm talking about some building, you're mistaken.

No, I think you are speaking of some visible organization that has a specific headquarters here and can be found by anyone that is able to see it and willing to accept that it is what it says.

If I am wrong, please tell me how I am wrong?

 

[Katzpur]

No, I think you are speaking of some visible organization that has a specific headquarters here and can be found by anyone that is able to see it and willing to accept that it is what it says.

If I am wrong, please tell me how I am wrong?

I believe in both the visible and invisible Church. I believe that Jesus Christ did establish it as part of His ministry, that after His death, men changed it, and that it has been re-established. I don't necessarily believe that all true Christians belong to that organization, though, because I personally take people at their word when they say they're Christian.

 

[sojourner]

That is not correct. Jesus did not establish any Church, so Church has no authority to invent creeds in the name of Jesus.

Lol -- of course he did. A church is a body -- an assembly of people. That's what "church" means. The Greek term in the bible is ekklesia -- "assembly." Jesus gathered an assembly of people around himself. And (according to the bible), he imbued that assembly with authority to speak in his name.

Whenever Jesus went to pray he went to a Jewish temple.

And so did his church, until the Jews cordially invited them not to come back.

Trinity is fallacious .

The Trinity is not fallacious, because it is congruent with what the church has always believed about Jesus.

 

[sojourner]

It's really more of a declaration that you don't accept the 4th and 5th century creeds.

Here's where you and I respectfully depart company. If you accept 19th and 20th century creeds, why not also accept 4th and 5th century creeds?

 

[sojourner]

The child in your analogy most definitely did not. There was a time when the child did not exist.

Wait a minute! Don't the LDS believe in preexistence?

 

[Katzpur]

Wait a minute! Don't the LDS believe in preexistence?

Well done, sojourner.

 

[Katzpur]

Here's where you and I respectfully depart company. If you accept 19th and 20th century creeds, why not also accept 4th and 5th century creeds?

So which 19th and 20th century creeds are you referring to?

 

[Katzpur]

The Trinity is not fallacious, because it is congruent with what the church has always believed about Jesus.

That he was part of the same "substance" as His Father? Oh, please.

 

[sojourner]

So which 19th and 20th century creeds are you referring to?

Well, not "creeds," per se, but revelations. I guess my point is that, if y'all believe in continuing revelation, why can't the ancient creeds (which are revelations) be believed, as well? Not challenging -- just asking for the rationale.