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

[Shiranui117]

Here, we get into the idea of two basic natures of God. That is first, a transcendent nature, and second, and immanent nature. While God appears to become more distant, at the same time, we gain the Spirit (or Wisdom, etc) who becomes closer to humans.

There are not two natures of God. How you describe God's immanence and transcendance is more appropriately matched up with St. Gregory Palamas's explanation of the Essence and Energies of God. God's Essence is Who God is within Himself--and thus it transcends everything else. God's Energies, on the other hand, are how God is in interaction with His creation. His Energies, also called His uncreated Grace, are immanent to us.

With Jesus, the idea is that God became human. That Jesus was the incarnation of God, or God in human form. Jesus is thus God, but God who becomes human.

With this, each entity is God, but a different form. One is the human form, another is the spirit form, and then there is the transcendent form.

Jesus is God incarnate. However, just because Jesus is fully human as well as fully God, does not mean that the other two Persons of the Trinity are fully human, too.

 

[Shiranui117]

Why would God Pray to himself? If Jesus was God why would he have the need to pray to himself, who he would then supposedly call Father? I don't understand that concept...

Jesus, one distinct Person of the Trinity, prays to the Father, another distinct Person of the Trinity. It's not a case of multiple personality disorder, or Jesus praying to Himself. Understanding that there are three distinct Persons in one God will help you to get this.

 

[Shermana]

Jesus, one distinct Person of the Trinity, prays to the Father, another distinct Person of the Trinity. It's not a case of multiple personality disorder, or Jesus praying to Himself. Understanding that there are three distinct Persons in one God will help you to get this.

So what does "person" mean then?

 

[Skwim]

What I've always found interesting about the Christian trinity is that it was voted into being at the end of the fourth century. Just think if the vote had gone the other way.

 

[Shiranui117]

So what does "person" mean then?

A subsistence of consciousness, will, essence, energy and personality, is my best attempt to give a definition. Metropolitan Kallistos Ware in my citation gives this definition: "a distinct centre of conscious selfhood."

Surely you can see how this differs from the Modalist description of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as simply "modes" or "masks" of God.

In the case of the Trinity, it's clear that Jesus and the Father are distinct Persons in the Gospel. This is made apparent at Jesus' baptism, where Jesus comes up from the waters of the Jordan, while the Father proclaims Him from Heaven.

What I've always found interesting about the Christian trinity is that it was voted into being at the end of the fourth century. Just think if the vote had gone the other way.

Except the understanding of God as Trinity reaches back further than the Councils of Nicaea 1 and Constantinople 1.

 

[Shermana]

A subsistence of consciousness, will,

So an entirely unique being?

essence, energy

And what is "Essence" while you're at it? Do Angels not have a similar "essence"? Where is this "essence" concept found scripturally? In Midrash?

(Note: I've been around the block and back on this person and essence thing hundreds of times...clear answers never result...ever.)

and personality

"Personality" is 100% MOdalism. This would also beg the question of why a single Entity has different "personalities", and that then begs the question of "What is a personality"? All this is just more vague wordplay that doesn't really clarify anything but nonetheless points back to the original Grand-daddy of the Trinity, Modalism.

, is my best attempt to give a definition. Metropolitan Kallistos Ware in my citation gives this definition: "a distinct centre of conscious selfhood."

So God is 3 selfhoods in this view? Why is a "selfhood" not an independent being? Or are you saying it is in fact 3 separate beings in a being?

Surely you can see how this differs from the Modalist description of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as simply "modes" or "masks" of God.

Actually I can't. I don't see how this attempt differs much from there being different modes/masks. If you're saying each person is a different "essence", that's essentially a different mode, how is it not? If you're saying it's a different "personality", that's still 3 different "aspects" of the same being, which indicates what a "mode" is in the first place.

As far as I can see, all attempts to explain the Trinity ultimately tip towards what can be called "modes" and don't really differentiate. The whole concept of "persons" and "essence" is nothing but meaningless wordplay in the end.

In the case of the Trinity, it's clear that Jesus and the Father are distinct Persons in the Gospel. This is made apparent at Jesus' baptism, where Jesus comes up from the waters of the Jordan, while the Father proclaims Him from Heaven.

Without any Nicean wordsmithing, the Scriptures are quite clear that they're entirely separate entities. The word "God" is only ever used to define God "The Father", with certain controversial cases like John 20:28 where it's been considered to be a "Statement of Exclamation" rather than calling Jesus God. Even in Revelation Jesus still refers to God as "God". So to say it's saying they're different "persons" falls short of what the bare context indicates. It's saying they are entirely separate entities altogether. Certain passages nonetheless require Grammatical exegesis in which there's a major clash between the church-aligned scholars and the independent scholars, though often even the Conservative scholars will cave and admit the independents are right.

Or essentially, Arianism.

 

[1137]

1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 = 1
That simple

 

[Windwalker]

A subsistence of consciousness, will, essence, energy and personality, is my best attempt to give a definition. Metropolitan Kallistos Ware in my citation gives this definition: "a distinct centre of conscious selfhood."

Surely you can see how this differs from the Modalist description of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as simply "modes" or "masks" of God.

In the case of the Trinity, it's clear that Jesus and the Father are distinct Persons in the Gospel. This is made apparent at Jesus' baptism, where Jesus comes up from the waters of the Jordan, while the Father proclaims Him from Heaven.

The first thing that is problematic of the Trinity doctrine is that is tries to define God. Right at the outset that makes it not-God, as God is beyond definition. God is paradoxical. If you are to look at John 1:1 and the whole use of the word Logos to describe Jesus' being in an eternal sense it is that of Manifestor.

The concept of the Logos is borrowed from Philo, and its use is that of an agent that acts to manifest what is invisible, undefinable, unknowable, and utterly transcendent in its nature. To even describe that God which the Logos "makes known" as a "person" is to make it knowable in itself. You just gave it a name and a distinct identity, thus making it not-God. In other words, Logos is takes the unknowable, the undefinable, the formless and becomes the visible, manifestation of that formless; making the unknowable God knowable. Thus, it is an expression of that formless into form. "All things were made through him" v.3; "He was not the Light, but he came to testify about the Light." v.8 (he was not the formless itself, but rather the manifestor of the formless in form); " And the Logos [the Manifestor, the Expressor, the Revealor] became flesh, and dwelt among us" v. 14, (thus continuing this function of agent of manifestation which existed "in the beginning" v. 1).

So the problem with the Trinity is again, that it puts a name on the wholly transcendent, thus making the Logos itself an unnecessary agent. The "Father" manifests itself, in itself. Three co-equal "persons", all knowable in themselves, all definable beings.

And as far as making a distinction between Jesus and the Father in the use of language, yes, there is a distinction between form and formless. I am temporal in the body, yet I arise from the formless and can be understood as an expression of the formless in form. So I am both, form and formlessness in form. The formless is eternal, the form is temporal. I am both. To me, when Jesus says "I and my Father are One", or "before Abraham was I am", this is just a conscious expression of this Self-recognition; this paradox of nonduality.

 

[Shiranui117]

So an entirely unique being?

More or less.

And what is "Essence" while you're at it? Do Angels not have a similar "essence"? Where is this "essence" concept found scripturally? In Midrash?

Essence is who you are within yourself. What makes you "you." The problem of defining essence isn't restricted solely to Trinitarian theology either.

No, angels do not have a similar essence. They are not comparable in any way to God.

essence is the attribute or set of attributes that make an entity or substance what it fundamentally is, and which it has by necessity, and without which it loses its identity. Essence is contrasted with accident: a property that the entity or substance has contingently, without which the substance can still retain its identity. The concept originates with Aristotle, who used the Greek expression to ti ên einai, literally 'the what it was to be', or sometimes the shorter phrase to ti esti, literally 'the what it is,' for the same idea. This phrase presented such difficulties for his Latin translators that they coined the word essentia (English "essence") to represent the whole expression. For Aristotle and his scholastic followers the notion of essence is closely linked to that of definition (horismos).http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essence#cite_note-1

(Note: I've been around the block and back on this person and essence thing hundreds of times...clear answers never result...ever.)

Ahh, thinly-veiled backbiting. You should stop doing it; it's exceedingly rude.

"Personality" is 100% MOdalism. This would also beg the question of why a single Entity has different "personalities", and that then begs the question of "What is a personality"? All this is just more vague wordplay that doesn't really clarify anything but nonetheless points back to the original Grand-daddy of the Trinity, Modalism.

HOORAY, twisting my words around! If you had actually read what I said, then you would know that I did not equate personality with person. Personality is simply one component. You can have multiple personalities within one person. That is not what the Trinity is. The Trinity is not Modalism (a case of God having schizophrenia/multiple personality disorder), and it is not Tritheism (three separate Gods with three separate essences). 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.

So God is 3 selfhoods in this view? Why is a "selfhood" not an independent being?

It is.

Or are you saying it is in fact 3 separate beings in a being?

That's one incredibly rough way to put it. Three separate Persons within one Being is a bit more like it.

Actually I can't. I don't see how this attempt differs much from there being different modes/masks. If you're saying each person is a different "essence", that's essentially a different mode, how is it not? If you're saying it's a different "personality", that's still 3 different "aspects" of the same being, which indicates what a "mode" is in the first place.

No, there is only one Divine Essence. It's more than a different personality. It is a different manifestation and a different subsistence. Each Person of the Trinity acts of their own accord, and in different ways, simultaneously.

As far as I can see, all attempts to explain the Trinity ultimately tip towards what can be called "modes" and don't really differentiate.

Not really. When arguing against Modalists, the threeness of God is stressed. When arguing against Arians, henotheists and polytheists, the oneness of God is stressed. The Trinity isn't on either face of the coin; it's balancing on the edge, which is precisely why it is so hard to logically understand (and believe me, explaining it to someone who's hell-bent on thinking that it can only be one or the other is even more of a pain)

 

[Shiranui117]

The first thing that is problematic of the Trinity doctrine is that is tries to define God. Right at the outset that makes it not-God, as God is beyond definition. God is paradoxical. If you are to look at John 1:1 and the whole use of the word Logos to describe Jesus' being in an eternal sense it is that of Manifestor.

The concept of the Logos is borrowed from Philo, and its use is that of an agent that acts to manifest what is invisible, undefinable, unknowable, and utterly transcendent in its nature. To even describe that God which the Logos "makes known" as a "person" is to make it knowable in itself. You just gave it a name and a distinct identity, thus making it not-God. In other words, Logos is takes the unknowable, the undefinable, the formless and becomes the visible, manifestation of that formless; making the unknowable God knowable. Thus, it is an expression of that formless into form. "All things were made through him" v.3; "He was not the Light, but he came to testify about the Light." v.8 (he was not the formless itself, but rather the manifestor of the formless in form); " And the Logos [the Manifestor, the Expressor, the Revealor] became flesh, and dwelt among us" v. 14, (thus continuing this function of agent of manifestation which existed "in the beginning" v. 1).

So the problem with the Trinity is again, that it puts a name on the wholly transcendent, thus making the Logos itself an unnecessary agent. The "Father" manifests itself, in itself. Three co-equal "persons", all knowable in themselves, all definable beings.

"The Tao (or God in this case) that can be named is not the eternal Tao (read: God)" ...Right?

I can appreciate this point of yours.

But just because we can only see a small part of the vast and incomprehensible ocean before it's shrouded and beyond our ability to fathom it, doesn't mean that we can't make observations about the tiny portion of it that we can see. And though we know that the ocean is limitless and wholly beyond our ability to understand it, there are some general understandings of it that we can make. It's sort of the same thing with God.

 

[Windwalker]

"The Tao (or God in this case) is not the eternal Tao (read: God)" ...Right?

I can appreciate this point of yours.

Yes, even to call it God defines "it" and makes it not "it". But for brevity, I use the dualistic term God. I like how Meister Eckhart calls it "God beyond God". That. Yes.

But just because we can only see a small part of the vast and incomprehensible ocean before it's shrouded and beyond our ability to fathom it, doesn't mean that we can't make observations about the tiny portion of it that we can see. And though we know that the ocean is limitless and wholly beyond our ability to understand it, there are some general understandings of it that we can make. It's sort of the same thing with God.

True, but it is like the blind men and the elephant then. We can describe forms or expressions of it. These are truths, but not the Truth itself. Forms of the formless. To define it, to give it a name "The Father", is simply a mask or a face that we put on the Infinite.

Interestingly, in John 1, what the Logos is, is that Face. A manifestation of the formless, or the formless expressed in form.

 

[Ouroboros]

Yes, even to call it God defines "it" and makes it not "it". But for brevity, I use the dualistic term God. I like how Meister Eckhart calls it "God beyond God". That. Yes.


True, but it is like the blind men and the elephant then. We can describe forms or expressions of it. These are truths, but not the Truth itself. Forms of the formless. To define it, to give it a name "The Father", is simply a mask or a face that we put on the Infinite.

Interestingly, in John 1, what the Logos is, is that Face. A manifestation of the formless, or the formless expressed in form.

Amen to all of that and previous post.

 

[Walkntune]

Hi
I have never really understood the Trinity, and I was just wondering if anyone here did, and if so if they could explain why some people think that God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are one but not the same, and if you could explain so without saying it's a mystery of God's nature etc. - I already know it's a bit of a mystery and I am trying to understand it a bit more. Thanks

You are mind, body and Spirit. You were created in the image of God. You are also a trinity.

 

[Shermana]

More or less.

The Trinity says they are NOT unique beings, it is "one being with 3 persons", so now you're saying its "One being with 3 beings". The concept of a "person" in the Trinity sense is to say that they are not separate beings. That's the official Catholic position at least.

God in Three Persons | Catholic Answers

He claimed there is only one person in the Godhead, so that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all one person with different "offices," rather than three persons who are one being in the Godhead, as the orthodox position holds.

So thus, any attempt to say they are separate "beings" is NOT the official orthodox Trinitarian position. No matter how you try to wordplay it.

Essence is who you are within yourself. What makes you "you." The problem of defining essence isn't restricted solely to Trinitarian theology either.

So essence is flesh and bone and spirit? There's a reason why defining essence is so problematic.

No, angels do not have a similar essence. They are not comparable in any way to God.

Says who? They are in fact called "gods", I see no reason to say they are not of the same essence whatsoever. They are "divine beings", they are part of the "Divine council", they are spiritual in essence, so yes they CAN be compared to God in many ways. I would say it's illogical to NOT say they are comparable to God, going by the text at least. If you have a problem defining Essence, how are you able to say what their essence is not?

Wikipedia definitions of Essence

That's nice but it doesn't explain what exactly the Essence of God and Jesus and Angels are.

Ahh, thinly-veiled backbiting. You should stop doing it; it's exceedingly rude.

Oh is it? I was just explaining that I've never once seen any thoroughly substantiated understanding of Person and Essence. So you're saying I should stop mentioning this?

HOORAY, twisting my words around!

How so? I think you just appreciate the exposition of your terms. I don't think I twisted anything. Besides, when we're dealing with such ill-defined vaguery, you should expect some twisting, even though I think I defined your terms just fine.

If you had actually read what I said, then you would know that I did not equate personality with person.

Oh I'm sorry, I thought when you listed "personality" as a component of Person that you were equating the concept, that's what I'd think anyone would understand from that. So what was your point in bringing up "personality" to begin with?

Personality is simply one component. You can have multiple personalities within one person.

Multiple personalities is a mental disorder. Besides, if each person is "one person" why would they have multiple personalities? You'd be saying that God and Jesus each have multiple personalities. I'm sorry if you find this backbiting but I'm merely pointing out the breakdowns in your attempts to define Person. It's okay though, NO ONE is able to define what "person" actually means. So perhaps you should also try defining what "personality" means, since apparently its use here, like "person" differs from its standard usage. Essentially, replacing one vague use of a term with another.

That is not what the Trinity is. The Trinity is not Modalism (a case of God having schizophrenia/multiple personality disorder), and it is not Tritheism (three separate Gods with three separate essences).

You're right, the Trinity is not about having multiple personalities in the persons. So I assume you renege on that "personality" part. Maybe I did read you right after all perhaps?

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.

Why is it impossible? If you can say what he's not, why can't you say what He is? If we say "God is Spirit" and "God is love", isn't that saying what He is? Apparently it IS possible to say what God is as well as what he's not. And he's not a being made up of 3 separate beings/"persons".

It is.

So how is a selfhood not a different "being" altogether? All we're doing here is more wordsmithing Nicean style. A being is not a different selfhood but a "person" is?

That's one incredibly rough way to put it. Three separate Persons within one Being is a bit more like it.

But then you're just saying that person and being are interchangeable. I don't see what's so "incredibly rough" about pointing out this logic.

No, there is only one Divine Essence.

Okay, and what exactly is this Divine Essence? Spirit? Why don't the Angels have this Divine Essence exactly? Since they're called "gods" and all.

It's more than a different personality. It is a different manifestation and a different subsistence. Each Person of the Trinity acts of their own accord, and in different ways, simultaneously.

So then they wouldn't be part of the "Same being" if they all act independently. Why would they? Again, you are skirting with modalism by saying each one is a different personality, or a different "aspect" or essentially "mode". You can accuse me of not reading you correctly, but that's what it is. Different personality = different mode. I don't see why it wouldn't be.

Not really. When arguing against Modalists, the threeness of God is stressed.

And that begs the question of "what is threeness"? Does that mean they are 3 separate gods in one God? 3 separate selfhoods? Why would they be one being? It's just Nicean wordplay that doesn't actually mean anything.

When arguing against Arians, henotheists and polytheists, the oneness of God is stressed.

So what is "oneness" when they are 3 separate "personalities" who have "independent selfhood"? What is stressed exactly? Just more words that have no real meaning that defy the descriptions used to address them? If God is one "being" made up of "3 beings comprised of independent selfhoods and personalities", how can one logically call that "oneness"? Is the Trimorphic makeup of the 3 a FOURTH god? Are we talking something like Vultron here? Does the 3 independent beings make up one single being who is the culmination of them? Does that mean they lose their Threeness by being oneness? If they still have threeness while having oneness, how is it in any way remotely oneness if they are still Threeness?

When arguing against Trinitarians, the oneness of God is stressed as well, as well as the fact that he is called "the god of the gods" for a reason, there are other gods, he's just the KING god, the big daddy, the one who is the articulated god for a reason. There's a reason he's called THE god. So arguing against "henotheists" is futile, since that's what the text is.

The Trinity isn't on either face of the coin; it's balancing on the edge, which is precisely why it is so hard to logically understand (and believe me, explaining it to someone who's hell-bent on thinking that it can only be one or the other is even more of a pain)

It can be a pain explaining to someone who's hell-bent on trying to find ways to define it outside of logic in a sort of "it exists no matter what" mentality. It's so hard to explain logically for a reason: It's impossible to. That's why the general answer is "It's too hard for the human mind to accept".

Any attempt used to explain it falls into a pitfall of contradictions, vague and meaningless terms that have no real application, and a shoe-horned attempt to say "it just is" in the face of the logical contradictions.

Yes, I'm "hell-bent" on saying that it's "one way or the other", it's basic logic. The Trinity is an attempt to say "it doesn't have to be logical", it's an example of how one can try to shoe-horn a doctrine that doesn't fit, and then say "it fits you just have to accept that it doesn't fit according to logic".

Even the square roots of negative numbers have more logical ability to be deduced. When a doctrine is so impossible to put into explanation that it "Can't be understood by the human mind", maybe just maybe it's impossible for a reason: It doesn't work, it's contradictory, it's illogical, and it's wrong.

It's an excellent exercise in showcasing how the church can historically, tenaciously cling to a set of ideas that defy logic and reason under the idea that somehow, there's a good reason for it. It's a matter of "just believe it and stop asking questions" ultimately.

 

[Ouroboros]

You are mind, body and Spirit. You were created in the image of God. You are also a trinity.

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?

 

[Shermana]

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?

Even better, why did Jesus try to get out of his crucifixion?

"Take this cup from me if you will".

Apparently they're not quite 100% in sync. Jesus may be the Image and representative, but he clearly has his own separate mind and feelings.

 

[Shiranui117]

Even better, why did Jesus try to get out of his crucifixion?

"Take this cup from me if you will".

Apparently they're not quite 100% in sync. Jesus may be the Image and representative, but he clearly has his own separate mind and feelings.

That was His human will talking. Jesus has both a Divine Will and a human will.

 

[Shiranui117]

The Trinity says they are NOT unique beings, it is "one being with 3 persons", so now you're saying its "One being with 3 beings". The concept of a "person" in the Trinity sense is to say that they are not separate beings.

Yes. They are not wholly separate from each other.

The Trinity: Scripture and the Greek Fathers | Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese

So thus, any attempt to say they are separate "beings" is NOT the official orthodox Trinitarian position. No matter how you try to wordplay it.

And likewise, any attempt to equate Trinitarianism with Modalism is NOT the official Trinitarian position. So I guess that makes us even.

So essence is flesh and bone and spirit?

No. You can cut off my arm, but I'm still me.

There's a reason why defining essence is so problematic.

And I think it's the reason that Theravada Buddhists deny its existence. I can see their point, personally.

Says who? They are in fact called "gods". . .

If you want to resurrect our 1V1 debate thread, go for it. The ball was in your court last time, anyway. I'd be glad to take you on.

That's nice but it doesn't explain what exactly the Essence of God and Jesus and Angels are.
So how is a selfhood not a different "being" altogether? All we're doing here is more wordsmithing Nicean style. A being is not a different selfhood but a "person" is? But then you're just saying that person and being are interchangeable. I don't see what's so "incredibly rough" about pointing out this logic.
Okay, and what exactly is this Divine Essence? Spirit? Why don't the Angels have this Divine Essence exactly? Since they're called "gods" and all.

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?

Oh is it? I was just explaining that I've never once seen any thoroughly substantiated understanding of Person and Essence. So you're saying I should stop mentioning this?

I was saying that you should stop trying to make me look like an idiot and belittling me. If that wasn't your intent, then I apologize.

How so? I think you just appreciate the exposition of your terms. I don't think I twisted anything. Besides, when we're dealing with such ill-defined vaguery, you should expect some twisting, even though I think I defined your terms just fine.

Oh I'm sorry, I thought when you listed "personality" as a component of Person that you were equating the concept, that's what I'd think anyone would understand from that. So what was your point in bringing up "personality" to begin with?

No, you equated "personality" with "person." I said that "personality" was one of the many things that go into our definition of "person."

Chocolate chip cookies may have some butter in them, but that doesn't mean that a chocolate chip cookie is synonymous with butter.

Multiple personalities is a mental disorder.

Precisely. That's why we Trinitarians love making that jab at the idea of Modalism.

Besides, if each person is "one person" why would they have multiple personalities?

Generally due to mental trauma.

You'd be saying that God and Jesus each have multiple personalities.

Where on earth are you getting this from? Just because you CAN have multiple personalities within one person, doesn't mean you always DO.

So perhaps you should also try defining what "personality" means, since apparently its use here, like "person" differs from its standard usage.

As I'm using it:
per·son·al·i·ty
[pur-suh-nal-i-tee] Show IPA
3. Psychology . a. the sum total of the physical, mental, emotional, and social characteristics of an individual.
b. the organized pattern of behavioral characteristics of the individual.

So I assume you renege on that "personality" part. Maybe I did read you right after all perhaps?

No you didn't. Sorry, bro.

Why is it impossible? If you can say what he's not, why can't you say what He is?

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

If we say "God is Spirit" and "God is love", isn't that saying what He is? Apparently it IS possible to say what God is as well as what he's not.

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

So then they wouldn't be part of the "Same being" if they all act independently. Why would they?

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.

Again, you are skirting with modalism by saying each one is a different personality, or a different "aspect" or essentially "mode". You can accuse me of not reading you correctly, but that's what it is. Different personality = different mode. I don't see why it wouldn't be.

It's more than just that.

And that begs the question of "what is threeness"? Does that mean they are 3 separate gods in one God? 3 separate selfhoods? Why would they be one being? It's just Nicean wordplay that doesn't actually mean anything.So what is "oneness" when they are 3 separate "personalities" who have "independent selfhood"? What is stressed exactly? Just more words that have no real meaning that defy the descriptions used to address them?
If God is one "being" made up of "3 beings comprised of independent selfhoods and personalities", how can one logically call that "oneness"?
Is the Trimorphic makeup of the 3 a FOURTH god? Are we talking something like Vultron here? Does the 3 independent beings make up one single being who is the culmination of them?

Does that mean they lose their Threeness by being oneness?
If they still have threeness while having oneness, how is it in any way remotely oneness if they are still Threeness?

Because they are all united by the same Essence and the same Will, and united in the Father. There is one God in three Persons, yet each Person also contains the fullness of God.

There is only one God, not three, not four, not two. One.

Both threeness and oneness are preserved at all times. This is the paradox of the Trinity, and the precise reason it is so difficult to understand.

When arguing against Trinitarians, the oneness of God is stressed as well, as well as the fact that he is called "the god of the gods" for a reason, there are other gods, he's just the KING god, the big daddy, the one who is the articulated god for a reason. There's a reason he's called THE god. So arguing against "henotheists" is futile, since that's what the text is.

Go ahead, think you know better than every Christian and Jew living today. You have absolutely no proof that the New Testament or the Jews/Christian of that period were either polytheist or henotheist. If you'd like, we can start another topic on this.

It can be a pain explaining to someone who's hell-bent on trying to find ways to define it outside of logic in a sort of "it exists no matter what" mentality. It's so hard to explain logically for a reason: It's impossible to. That's why the general answer is "It's too hard for the human mind to accept".

Any attempt used to explain it falls into a pitfall of contradictions, vague and meaningless terms that have no real application, and a shoe-horned attempt to say "it just is" in the face of the logical contradictions.

Yes, I'm "hell-bent" on saying that it's "one way or the other", it's basic logic. The Trinity is an attempt to say "it doesn't have to be logical", it's an example of how one can try to shoe-horn a doctrine that doesn't fit, and then say "it fits you just have to accept that it doesn't fit according to logic".

Even the square roots of negative numbers have more logical ability to be deduced. When a doctrine is so impossible to put into explanation that it "Can't be understood by the human mind", maybe just maybe it's impossible for a reason: It doesn't work, it's contradictory, it's illogical, and it's wrong.

It's an excellent exercise in showcasing how the church can historically, tenaciously cling to a set of ideas that defy logic and reason under the idea that somehow, there's a good reason for it. It's a matter of "just believe it and stop asking questions" ultimately.

The same can be said for the entire concept of God. I hope you understand this. Everything you just said here can apply perfectly to any concept of God. Once you get over the absolute absurdity of believing in God in the first place, the Trinity really shouldn't be that difficult to accept. A God in general is even less defensible than the Trinity, and the concept is open to far more questions of ethics, logistics, history, philosophy, theology, etc. than the concept of the Trinity could ever hope to be.

 

[Shermana]

Yes. They are not wholly separate from each other.

The Trinity: Scripture and the Greek Fathers | Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese

Looks like we also need to define the word "Separate" as well. (Interesting how so many words here have different meanings than their standard usage when discussing the Trinity). So where does that article explain just how "Separate" they are and aren't?

And likewise, any attempt to equate Trinitarianism with Modalism is NOT the official Trinitarian position. So I guess that makes us even.

I don't think you understand what I meant. The point is that most attempts to define the Trinity end up in Modalism.

No. You can cut off my arm, but I'm still me.

Right, likewise if I pluck a hair off my beard I'm still me. That's not the point though. The concept is that "Essence" can mean anything about anything that defines a person. Do humans not all have the same "Human essence"? So then, where's the line between God's essence and the Angels'?

And I think it's the reason that Theravada Buddhists deny its existence. I can see their point, personally.

I can see their point too. The concept of 'essence" is really just more vague meaningless wordplay that has no real concrete essence, essentially.

If you want to resurrect our 1V1 debate thread, go for it. The ball was in your court last time, anyway. I'd be glad to take you on.

I suppose. Or we could start a new one on whether in fact the word "gods" did in fact apply to Angels. You can even ask the judaism DIR, I get this issue with a lot of orthodox apologists. The scholars overwhelmingly agree that the Israelites did in fact consider the angels to be what we call "gods" and that the meaning of the word "god" kinda changed as an overreaction to Hellenism. But that's beyond the point, I'm asking for you to substantiate your claim that Angels do not have "any" of God's essence.

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 can't explain God's essence, then you should retract on your statement that we know that it can't possibly be the same as the Angels'. In fact, we should avoid any and all discussion of "essence" in pertinence to the Trinity, even though the word "essence" or "substance" plays such an essential role the essence of its definition.

I was saying that you should stop trying to make me look like an idiot and belittling me. If that wasn't your intent, then I apologize.

It wasn't. The point was to tell you that I've debated this subject more times than I can count and it always ends up the same way. For a reason.

No, you equated "personality" with "person." I said that "personality" was one of the many things that go into our definition of "person."

And I pointed out that the issue of having distinct personalities for those persons is nonetheless akin to the Modalistic view. For the Classical Trinity to work, all personalities must be the same.

And in relation to what you said about Jesus reflecting his "human nature" in having a different "will" than the Father:

Believers in the Trinity recognize that there is but one Divine Will. This does not mean that the three Persons merely agree, but that there is numerically one Divine Will (there is a wrinkle on this, however, as the Son of God, since his Incarnation, also has a human will and thus we say that there are two wills in Christ).

The Trinity

This "wrinkle" kinda undermines the idea that there's "one will", even if it's in Jesus's "human form". How does being a human and having a human will somehow make it so there's still "one Divine Will" that is shared among all three "persons"? How is that not just an excuse "for the exception"?

Chocolate chip cookies may have some butter in them, but that doesn't mean that a chocolate chip cookie is synonymous with butter.

Relevance?

Precisely. That's why we Trinitarians love making that jab at the idea of Modalism.

But it's essentially not much different than the attempts to explain the Trinity. If you're saying that one being has different personalities in its "persons" (whatever "person" means here exactly), you're falling into the same trap.

 

[Shermana]

Where on earth are you getting this from? Just because you CAN have multiple personalities within one person, doesn't mean you always DO.

What are you getting at? You made the claim that this "one being" has "different personalities". Are we on the same track here?

3. Psychology . a. the sum total of the physical, mental, emotional, and social characteristics of an individual.
b. the organized pattern of behavioral characteristics of the individual.

So that would mean that these "persons" (Whatever person means here exactly) have different personalities, which would mean multiple personalities, which would mean different mental, physical, and social and behavioral characteristics. Right? If that's the case, you're still looking at 3 unique beings in a being. That's not the Classical Trinity. Hence, the "personality" concept must be rejected and another word used if you want to remain in the Classical Trinity peramaters. How about "personification" instead?

No you didn't. Sorry, bro.

No, I think I did. I fail to see how I didn't. I think you don't understand your own point about what "personality" entails.

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

Sure why not? I don't see why appealing to the idea of God being "beyond human understanding" somehow escapes the direct logical points we can discuss about His nature and being. If you want to talk about "what he's not", surely you must understand what he is to begin with. I don't need to follow some quasi-mystical view of God, there's plenty of material to work with to know about what He is in the first place. Going by the text alone, God is nothing at all what the Trinity implies. The Trinity is just a method of interpreting the text according to a particular Church bias, just like Arianism is a way of interpreting to another bias.

The point however was that you said that Angels and God do not share any of the same essence. So if you don't know what God's essence is, surely you should reconsider making such a claim.

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

How do you know? The text is quite clear in implying the personality traits of God. We get more than just a few small bits of the Ocean, we get entire seas' worth, and we can garner from there what the other implications are. I don't buy into the idea that "God is too mysterious for men's minds to understand".

Essentially, that's what these arguments all boil down to:

"It's too much for the human mind to understand".

Well I disagree, I think man's mind was designed to be able to understand.

Again, if you make the claim that we can know what God is not, we have to know plenty about what He is to begin with.

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

You have yet to explain how they have the Same Essence, especially when you say we can't know anything about that Essence, or what Essence is. I'd consider dropping the essence part considering that it's already vague and meaningless as it is. So if you think your essence is different than mine, what is it that makes me different than you other than our place of birth and personality? Is your skin made of something else? Is your spirit made of something else? Or are you going by some vague idea of "personality" as essence? If that's the case, you've made clear that Jesus and God have different personalities, so they can't possibly have the same "essence" by your own logic. From whence do you get the idea, other than the Nicean councils, that Jesus and God have the same essence, while we have different essences?

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.

That doesn't define what essence is. According to your logic, we have different essence yet we are both 99.99999% the same. So unless Jesus and God are 100% the same, they would have different essences too. What does "Divine Will" mean? Jesus clearly defines that his will is not necessarily the same as the Father's. "Let thy will be done, not mine".

It's more than just that.

Okay, and?

Because they are all united by the same Essence and the same Will, and united in the Father. There is one God in three Persons, yet each Person also contains the fullness of God.

That's basically just repeating the same claims that I'm explaining don't make sense.

There is only one God, not three, not four, not two. One.

So how can they be independent selfhoods if they are not separate beings and thus separate gods?

Both threeness and oneness are preserved at all times. This is the paradox of the Trinity, and the precise reason it is so difficult to understand.

It's a paradox that's essentially inexplainable, and "is too much for the human mind to understand". I think the human mind can understand that it's illogical and simply the attempt to force down an irrational concept that something can be "threeness" and "oneness" at the same time. There's no way to reconcile it other than just "Believe it and stop asking questions!"

Go ahead, think you know better than every Christian and Jew living today. You have absolutely no proof that the New Testament or the Jews/Christian of that period were either polytheist or henotheist. If you'd like, we can start another topic on this.

My view on this is the standard scholarly view about the Ancient Israelites and their Henotheism. You can even go ask the Judaism DIR on this. Report your findings.

The same can be said for the entire concept of God. I hope you understand this. Everything you just said here can apply perfectly to any concept of God. Once you get over the absolute absurdity of believing in God in the first place.../quote]I highly disagree, I believe the concept of deity altogether is much, much easier to explain and extrapolate ideas from than the specific Trinity doctrine which is a world of contradictions and irrationality, like "Threeness is oneness and oneness is Threeness", and doesn't require any "person" or "essence" or other vague ill-defined (undefinable) wordplay. But that's another subject.

Also, I don't understand why it's absurd to believe in God in the first place, it wasn't absurd for Aristotle or the inventors of Calculus, I don't get this one. The concept of believing in a Higher Power is nearly universal for all human history, even if there's differences in the details. The idea of the Trinity is a totally different ballgame, full of discrepancies and gaps and holes.