Skip to comments.The Real Trinity
Posted on 11/09/2006 8:44:45 AM PST by policyforever867
The Holy Trinity
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
No entity called "the holy spirit" is there with them. Also, every vision of heaven never includes a myserious 3rd person called the holy spirit. For example:
Rev 7:10 And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb.
Rev 7:11 And all the angels stood round about the throne, and about the elders and the four beasts, and fell before the throne on their faces, and worshiped God,
Rev 7:12 Saying, Amen: Blessing, and glory, and wisdom, and thanksgiving, and honor, and power, and might, be unto our God forever and ever. Amen.
Notice that they are not worshipping anyone called "the holy spirit" in heaven, but they are worshipping the father and son. The holy spirit is the presence and power of God on earth. It is not a separate person in the Godhead.
These are all terms than man ascribes and are limited by our perspective. Imagine a two year old describing the workings of Quantum Physics. Anytime a human must describe the supernatural, we have already created a problem in that our perspective is so limited. IMHO, God transcends all of these descriptions and they are simply attempts by man to describe aspects of God's nature/being that he cannot find a better description for.
Note: What I say could apply to all dogma, not simply the 'Trinity'..
The usual "explanation" is
horate hoti ex ergon dikaioutai anthropos kai ouk ek pisteos monon.
-- James 2:24
Just saying ...
This position is not orthodox Trinitarianism. This is known variously as "Monarchianism," "Modalism," "Sabellianism," or "Patripassianism" when it first arose in the second or third century. This belief is common today among the "oneness" Pentecostals but it is simply a resurrection of an old heresy.
Check out the article on "Monarchiamism" at the Catholic Encyclopedia for more information.
These two articles are also relevant:
Good post, well stated.
Just as a check on our thinking, whenever one thinks any person of the Trinity is not God, then that thinking is following a wrong premise or past thought. God reveals Himself though simple faith in Him.
But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.
I also liked what you said. It seems to me that the classic doctrinal formulations are, in a way, cautionary. That is, if I find myself in a line of thought that divides the substance or confuses the persons -- or in Christ confuses the natures or divides the person, I'm probably messing up.
One of my favorite moments in my education happened when i was tangling with one of my best-loved professors and I said, "You're dividing the person!" and he laughed and replied, "I am NOT -- YOU'RE confusing the natures!" And we both laughed.
Mind you, we both used to go around muttering at each other, "None is orthodox but me and thee, and sometimes I have my doubts about thee ..."
If you look to the Older Testament for understanding,b'shem Y'shua
it becomes crystal clear.
It is the Father who forgives us;
it is the Son, who is our Salvation as it is His Name
His real Name is not Jesus that is an English version
of Greek which is a version of the
Hebrew Name He was given: Yah'shua
Which means "YHvH is become our Salvation".
and the Ru'ach HaKodesh (Eliezer or Comforter )
who provides us with living pools of water.Isaiah 12:1 In that day you will say: I will praise you, O LORD.
Although you were angry with me, your anger has turned
away and you have comforted me.
Isaiah 12:2 Surely God is my salvation; I will trust and not be afraid. The
LORD, the LORD, is my strength and my song; he has become my salvation.
Isaiah 12:3 With joy you will draw water from the wells of salvation.
Isaiah 12:4 In that day you will say: Give thanks to the LORD, call on
his name; make known among the nations what he has done,
and proclaim that his name is exalted.
Isaiah 12:5 Sing to the LORD, for he has done glorious things;
let this be known to all the world.
Isaiah 12:6 Shout aloud and sing for joy, people of Zion,
for great is the Holy One of Israel among you.
Sounds pretty self explanitory to me
It sounds to me like you don't really believe, you're just being obedient.
They are one God. He is revealed to us in three persons.
It is a fabulous study for each and every believer to follow through first making sure we are in fellowship with Him by turning our thinking to Him and confessing our sins, known and unknown to Him and He is sure and just to forgive us those sins. By remaining in faith through Him, He conitinues to guide us appropriately.
Here is another interesting aspect of the Trinity.
In the Old Testament, believers were endued with the Holy Spirit, but today, in the Church Age believers are indwelt by the Holy Spirit.
Indwelling is not experiential, ut the filling of the spirit may be experiential. The indwelling of the Holy Spirit provides a temple in us for the indwelling of the Son and in dwelling of the Father.
Some fascinating studies are paying close attention of the relationships between the Father, Son and Holy Ghost; their ministries, their role in salvation, and role in prayer.
It is interesting to note that the Holy Spirit makes our prayers known to the Father in fashions where we are incapable. Also, there is a vast distinction between OT theology and names of different persons of the Godhead and the NT language. They are still the same Word of God and revealed by an immutable God.
They have trouble explaining this doctrine. In the end it has to be accepted it by faith. Even Catholics will tell you its a paradox.
You must be God too then since Jesus prayed that all beleivers would become one with him and the father.
So, let me ask first: Do you accept what the Bible says about the Church being "the pillar and foundation of the Truth"? (If you do not, then I have another question: "Do you believe the Bible?")
If you do believe the Bible, then your frame of reference should be the "pillar and foundation of the Truth." the Church; not your own inclinations and not your fellow FReepers. For guidance on difficult matters having to do with Divine Revelation, read what the Ecumenical Councils taught (starting with Nicaea in 325 AD.)
It's very beautiful and very meaningful, but not something you can arrive at without the God-authorized teaching authority of the Church.
I've never understood why some paradoxs are OK, and others are not.
[Origin: 1530ÃÂÃÂ40; < L paradoxum < Gk parÃÂÃÂ¡doxon, n. use of neut. of parÃÂÃÂ¡doxos unbelievable, lit., beyond belief. See para-1, orthodox]
Sorry, but I'm a Catholic, and I'm here to tell you that the Trinity is no paradox. It is, however, a mystery, the technical definition of which is a "revealed truth of the faith which cannot be fully grasped by created human intellect".
Frank Sheed (the late Catholic apologist, not the FReeper) very clearly explains the Trinity in Theology and Sanity.
The church is to be the defender of Truth, not the originator of Truth.
Ok I stand corrected. "Mystery" instead of "paradox". (although it is true I've been told by certain Catholics its a paradox) Since it can't be explained to be understood by the human intellect my point remains ya gotta take it by faith.
God is the originator of Truth. (Who else?) He is also the originator of the Church, which He founded to teach the Truth ("whoever hears you, hears me") Luke 10:15-17
I would suggest for those with budding faith to find the Gospel and read, and absorb. Jesus did not directly speak of the Trinity, but did tell us to baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19) in the Great Commission. It is indeed a mystery, something which might be beyond our understanding until we are all called home. But Nicene Creed explains what we DO know about the whole thing.
Jesus and His Word are the cornerstone of the Church, and what He says in the Gospel is enough to bring us to God. And communion with the Body of Christ is not just a help, but essential to growth in the faith. The brothers and sisters in a church can guide you and support you in ways that you might not realize.
Oops. That should have been addressed to policyforever867...
Source, please, or is this a vanity?
Astronomers tell us the universe is expanding. But if the universe is everything how can it be expanding and what is it expanding into? Although they can measure it in scientific terms, they can't explain it. I suppose we just have to take it on faith that what they say is true.
Not really. Doppler effect pretty much convinces me about the universe expanding. 3 is 1 and 1 is 3 hasn't been explained to my satisfaction yet. BTW, because the universe is expanding doesn't necessarily mean its everything. That's your spin.
Some say paradox, some say mystery. Apparently they're not on the same page yet. :-)
My glib approach is that nothing we say about God is true, but some things are even further from the mark than others. Also, God being the only one of his kind and a priori different from everything and relationship which language deals with, all the things we same a bout him should be preceeding by "sorta like".
For example. God isn't even "one" the same way other things are one. When we attribute "oneness" to God, we Tgrinitarians find ourselve simmediately in trouble and have to say, well He's Three, also, But He's not three the way other triads (for example, the tri-lateral commission, Sahdrach, Meshach, AND Abednego, Tinkers, Evers Chance)are three and He's not one the way any thing we ever thoguht of as one is. (remember the campaign slogan, "Nixon's the One" - to which I always wnated to say, "He IS? You sure coulda fooled me!") He's just "sorta like".
And if I then say that something else is a better "sorta like" I end up in REAL trouble.
That's how I do it, anyway.
To support the idea of a three-in-one Godhead you must use terms not found in the Bible, rely on false scripture based on twisted interpretations that contradict extremely clear scripture and create a convoluted theory that no one really understands....forcing its adherents to declare it a mystery.
Your entire post was a mystery. In any language that God has given us one means one and three means three.
That's true. But keep in mind that "mystery" doesn't mean it can't be understood at all. It means it can't "all" be understood. Like your love for your child. You can explain it in part, but there are parts that go beyond your conscious grasp.
And trying to understand more and more, is a good thing, worth your effort. Psalm 119:34 --- Give me understanding, that I may keep your law and obey it with all my heart.
Oh, but I never said that. I said it can't be fully grasped by created intellect. Why would you think an infinite and transcendant God would be otherwise?
I gave you a reference where it's explained, explained clearly, and explained so that any literate person can understand it.
That's a good thing, right?
In any language that God has given us one means one and three means three.I don't think this conversation can be carried on to anyone's benefit using an adversarial approach. I'm not saying you're doing that. I'm preemptively excusing myself from the conversation if it gets anything but easy going and meditative.
If you will reread my post, you will see, I think, that I didn't say anything about any language that God has given us, or, for that matter, any language we have managed to come up with one our own, with or without God's help. What I am trying to say is something like this. God is more unlike anything else than He is like anything else. I would suggest, that the most basic predication, namely: that something "is, is made about God in a way defferent from the way it is made about anything else. God "sorta like" is.
Yes, one means one. But "one" is attributed to, ah, wine bottles, in a way different from the way it is attributed to God. For one thing, THIS wine bottle is one, but one among many. If monotheism is true, then God is one, but not one among many.
So, someone might say, well God is one among all the things that are. I would say back, that God "is" in a manner different from the other things that "are" because His "being" lets them "be", since they exist at His will and are only because He is.
Creatures "are" in a dependent way. God "is" as the source of Being. Creatures "are" for a while. God always "is" (by definition). A dog who eats a powerful explosive, is only "one dog" for a while, then he is many pieces of dog, while the dog is only a memory.
Is a car "one" or is it a mess of parts, and does the word we use just means something like "a bunch of parts which together sometimes move humans around, and other times make money for mechanics, or, as parts, make money for junkyard owners." So one and many is sometime hard for even dogs and cars.
But God, they say, and it seems smart, has no parts. He is "one" through and through.
But, while God has no Father, sometimes Jesus, who is God, addresses Himself to "The Father". If they're one, why Jesus address anything to the Father. It would be like an itch telling itself it itched. If they're not one, either Jesus is not God, or God has a father who is not God. Or, maybe, just maybe, when we say, "Shema Yisroel, Adoshem Elohenu, Adoshem ehad," maybe "ehad" isn't exactly as simple as we thought it was, no matter what language we speak, and especially when attributed to the LORD our God.
As I said, "Sorta like" one. "Sorta like" three.
But yeah, ontology is a mystery, pretty much. I'll cop to that.
Yes. But in the language of metaphysics, person and nature are not the same thing. Person is an identity. "George W. Bush" is a person. That's his identity, his "who". His what is a nature. It's the collection of qualities and capabilities that are proper to the class to which he belongs, that of human beings.
God is three persons with one divine nature. You know about things that have nature without person; a rock has a rock nature but there is no "rock person", so a rock exhibits a zero-to-one relationship of person to nature. You, yourself, have a human nature, and are a human person; that's a one-to-one relationship of person to nature.
God has a three-to-one relationship of person to nature. This is without precedent in the created world, which has only one-to-one (humans and angels) and zero-to-one (inanimate objections, animals) relationships of person-to-nature. But it is not illogical, or even paradoxical.
why can't you explain it to me?
See post 35, but that's a (very partial) summary of something that's much longer. See Sheed's book.
Sometimes it is simply part of a number, like "eleven" (echad + 'asar, one plus ten), in , for example Genesis 32:22. Sometimes it is as well translated by an indefinite article (a[n]): "a new cart" (1 Sam. 6:7); "a juniper tree" (1 Kings 19:4,5); "a book" (Jer. 51:60).
Perhaps most importantly, echad clearly has the meaning of single, alone, ONLY one, or JUST one, the ideal of a limit of one (Num. 10:4; Josh. 17:14; Esth. 4:11; Isa. 51:2). In Deuteronomy 17:6, for example, it really isn't precise English to translate echad merely as "one". For if the "one" witness referred to is the second of the third witness, then that one witness is enough to convict the hypothetical person of murder. The meaning is that a person must not be put to death of the evidence of only one witness (which is the way the NRSV translates it). Echad means "one" and ONLY one.
I don't see how it relates to the problem I'm rasing about predications about God.
If you look in the tanak you will find that God's nose got hot on more than one occasion. Between you and me, I don't think God really has a nose. (Not counting the Incarnation, I mean) They must be making a predication analogically. In fact it's an analogy piled on an analogy, like Pelian on Ossa - and still unable to reach as high as the Olympus of non-analogical attributions about El Shaddai. It's "sorta like" his nose got hot.
YEAH, I get that there's a jump from noses to number. But I tried to say "one" isn't such an easy idea even when used about dogs and cars. It gets totally out of control when applied to the LORD. (Trying to approximate RSV usage when referring to the Holy Name here, out of respect, not to say terror.)
Now listen class: if ANYONE, I repeat, ANYONE, starts singing "One is the Loneliest Number" heads will ROLL! DO I make myself CLEAR?
Some things really work better in other environments, y'know? Some ideas don't match up with high school or even college forensics.
(BTW I half agree and half disagree with you on the universe thing. All the phenomena suggest expansion. But if universe [there's that pseky "one" again] means what it seems to mean, how good there be any thing, not IN the universe. [Space, BTW, may not be a thing.])
If your ignorance is truly invincible, then what are we doing here?
Sounds pretty self explanitory to me
Metaphors and other literary devices have been become incomprehensible parables.
ShemA Yisrael Adonai Elohenu Adonai echaD
is a simple statement of Torah truth.
Appreciate your post.
Another description of "mystery" in this use is: Something about which you can constantly know more, but never all.
Well, don't think of it as a mathematical absurdity, because it's not about arithmetic or numeration at all. It's about love.
The most basic things we know about God are that God is One, and that God is Love. But Love can't be One in the most singleton solitary sense, because a "love of one" would be a profound egotism, a stuck-on-yourselfness which is not actually love at all, but quite a monstrous opposite.
So God who is Love is a Tri-unity. There is an inner back-and-forth of love, a giving and receiving and back again, a dynamism.
This has to do with the inner life of God within Himself, not as three "aspects" of one person, but as three Persons united in one Nature: a kaleidoscope.
And this is a Mystery, not because we can never understand any of it, but because we can never understand all of it.
And think: what could this possibly mean: that we were "created in the image and likeness of God"?
Good question. Dunno. But then if I can make one mad dog serene it will all have been worth it.
Speaking for the rabies-challenged everywhere, I want to say thank you, from the bottom of my salivary glands ....
You know, people see a foaming at the mouth, grolwing dog who seems to take no regard for his own personal safety and seems to intend to compromise the personal safety of anyone who gets close enough ... and they react negatively! Can you imagine?
I'm tired of putting up with this hydrophophiaphobia!
Well believing isn't enough anymore. You need to KNOW - not just take someone else's word for it.
Very nice of you to say. I have no problem with any of you. Godspeed.
My response is that there's no possible way you can KNOW this. It must be taken by faith. Not that there's anything wrong with that but then there are those who get offended and act surprised if, God forbid, somebody asks a question about it. Not saying this describes you but I thought this is the FR a place to discuss these kind of things. :-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.