Thoughts about Trinity beliefs

[Longfellow]

In the last few years, I've spent a lot of time in a Trinity forum, watching debates between people defending and attacking Trinity beliefs. I'm posting my thoughts here, to see what happens.

I don't say that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are persons. I say what they are not. The Father and the Son are not the same person. The Father and the Holy Spirit are not the same person. The Son and the Holy Spirit are not the same person. In my understanding of the Bible, "God" can mean any one of them, or all of them, but they are not three gods.

There's a complication here. To be honest, actually I think that Jesus is a god, as much as any Greek or Roman god, with more power and authority than any of them. But I don't know what to do with that, so please let's just ignore it. Let's just take the part about all of them being God, no two of them being the same person, and yet they are not three gods.

There's another complication here. I don't see God saying anywhere that He is not three gods. He doesn't say how many of Him there are. He only says that there are no others besides Him. Let's ignore that for now also. Let's have another thread for that if anyone wants to. This is about Trinity beliefs, which start from the premises that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are all God (I agree), no two of them are the same person (I agree), and they are not three gods (I might not agree but let's ignore that here).

In the Bible stories, Jesus does not object to Peter calling Him God. Also, He teaches His disciples practices that look like worshiping Him in ways that God reserves for Himself. I don't think that the disciples lost any sleep over that. I think that they trusted Him that He wouldn't tell them or agree for them to do anything contrary to God's will, including His prohibition against worshiping any other gods. I think that in fact there are precedents for all of that in the Old Testament. It didn't become a problem until the news started spreading in the surrounding society that there were people worshiping the God of Israel who prohibited worshiping anyone else besides Him, and worshiping a man. at the same time. Then some Christian leaders started trying to explain how that was not a contradiction, in terms of Greek philosophy. How that led to Trinity doctrines and beliefs is a long and complicated series of unfortunate events, which I may or may not try to describe in other posts.

 

[Longfellow]

I've been searching for a short way to say the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, without using a misleading word like "persons." I found it! I'll just say "the Three." In this thread, when I say "the Three," it will mean "the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit."

 

[Thomas]

I don't say that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are persons. I say what they are not. The Father and the Son are not the same person. The Father and the Holy Spirit are not the same person. The Son and the Holy Spirit are not the same person. In my understanding of the Bible, "God" can mean any one of them, or all of them, but they are not three gods.

OK, but you are not saying they are not persons ... but I see your dilemma.

A significant part of the problem is the term 'person' means something quite different in common parlance than it does in theological language.

If we say three persons, most people think of three people, and that as a person possesses a mind, a will, a consciousness, and so on, then the Trinity speaks of three minds, three wills, three consciousnesses, and so on ... which is not the case.

+++

'Person' has come down from the Latin, persona, but the term today carries a lot of baggage, and furthermore has lost sight of what the Latin originally meant – a quick look will reveal that persona refers to the mask used by actors to portray characters in the theatre of the day.

More accurately, and more relevantly, the word is the conjunction of per ('through') and sonare (verb: 'to sound'), coming round to the mask 'through which the voice sounds' or through which the character manifests itself.

The Greek is prosopon (πρόσωπον) is similar, it can infer a face, a mask, a person or a manifestation of something. Again, in Greek theatre, it specifically referred to the masks actors wore to portray characters.

The term derives from the Greek prós ('toward') and ṓps (eye or face).

In both cases then, persona/prosopon can be read to infer something sounded or seen through – the manifestation of something unseen.

+++

One can complicate matters even further by introducing the term hypostasis, Greek hupostasis (ὑπόστασις) from hupo ('under') and stasis ('standing'). I only mention it because it, too, signifies the distinction between the appearance of a thing and its (unseen) reality.

+++

Having said that, there is much discussion down through the centuries regarding the distinction between Father, Son and Holy Spirit – they are three 'persons' in relation to each other because they are distinct in specific ways – the Father is Unbegotten, the Son is (eternally) begotten of the Father, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.

They each have their distinct mission and operation – but there is only one mind, one will, one consciousness.

There's a complication here.

Well there always will be, because one is trying to understand a mystery. The problem with that word (mystery) is it evokes a 'who-dunnit'-type of problem, something that can be unravelled or solved. That's not, contextually, what mystery implies.

lastly, of course, we have to acknowledge that any analogy of the Holy Trinity is an inadequate expression of it, but it gives us something we can work with, as long as that does not become exclusive and definitive.

An analogy is a way of trying to understand, or an aide in grasping, that which exceeds our understanding.

++

All this, of course, is irrelevant in the lives of the vast majority of Trinitarian Christians. A belief in the Trinity suffices in and of itself. It doesn't need explaining, because it can't be explained. That fact that one can't explain it is, in itself, not sufficient reason not to believe in it.

 

[Longfellow]

OK, but you are not saying they are not persons ... but I see your dilemma.

A significant part of the problem is the term 'person' means something quite different in common parlance than it does in theological language.

If we say three persons, most people think of three people, and that as a person possesses a mind, a will, a consciousness, and so on, then the Trinity speaks of three minds, three wills, three consciousnesses, and so on ... which is not the case.

+++

'Person' has come down from the Latin, persona, but the term today carries a lot of baggage, and furthermore has lost sight of what the Latin originally meant – a quick look will reveal that persona refers to the mask used by actors to portray characters in the theatre of the day.

More accurately, and more relevantly, the word is the conjunction of per ('through') and sonare (verb: 'to sound'), coming round to the mask 'through which the voice sounds' or through which the character manifests itself.

The Greek is prosopon (πρόσωπον) is similar, it can infer a face, a mask, a person or a manifestation of something. Again, in Greek theatre, it specifically referred to the masks actors wore to portray characters.

The term derives from the Greek prós ('toward') and ṓps (eye or face).

In both cases then, persona/prosopon can be read to infer something sounded or seen through – the manifestation of something unseen.

+++

One can complicate matters even further by introducing the term hypostasis, Greek hupostasis (ὑπόστασις) from hupo ('under') and stasis ('standing'). I only mention it because it, too, signifies the distinction between the appearance of a thing and its (unseen) reality.

+++

Having said that, there is much discussion down through the centuries regarding the distinction between Father, Son and Holy Spirit – they are three 'persons' in relation to each other because they are distinct in specific ways – the Father is Unbegotten, the Son is (eternally) begotten of the Father, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.

They each have their distinct mission and operation – but there is only one mind, one will, one consciousness.


Well there always will be, because one is trying to understand a mystery. The problem with that word (mystery) is it evokes a 'who-dunnit'-type of problem, something that can be unravelled or solved. That's not, contextually, what mystery implies.

lastly, of course, we have to acknowledge that any analogy of the Holy Trinity is an inadequate expression of it, but it gives us something we can work with, as long as that does not become exclusive and definitive.

An analogy is a way of trying to understand, or an aide in grasping, that which exceeds our understanding.

You've pretty well covered why I don't say that they are persons. Even if the original meaning was a mask worn to represent different characters, that's still false. The Three are not different masks worn by the same person. I've come around to thinking that these analogies might be helpful in some ways beyond just a false feeling of understanding, but only if a person doesn't think that any other way of thinking is wrong. I'm still feeling though, that a false feeling of understanding can get in the way of learning and growing from reading the Bible.

All this, of course, is irrelevant in the lives of the vast majority of Trinitarian Christians. A belief in the Trinity suffices in and of itself. It doesn't need explaining, because it can't be explained.

When you say that a belief in the Trinity suffices in and of itself, I'm not sure if it's just to say that it suffices for the vast majority of Trinitarian Christians, or if it's also what you think Either way, I have some questions about it. One question is, what do you mean by a belief in the Trinity? Just to accept it as being true? If so, to accept what as being true? What the Bible says about the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, in its own words, or in the words of some bishops and theologians substituted in their place? If it's important to accept the interpretations, or if you prefer, paraphrases of bishops and theologians, with or without knowing or caring what the Bible says in its own words, why is that important?

That fact that one can't explain it is, in itself, not sufficient reason not to believe in it.

Agreed.

 

[TheLightWithin]

I don't say that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are persons. I say what they are not. The Father and the Son are not the same person. The Father and the Holy Spirit are not the same person. The Son and the Holy Spirit are not the same person. In my understanding of the Bible, "God" can mean any one of them, or all of them, but they are not three gods.

Other than your questioning of the word person, what you are saying sounds like orthodox trinitarianism to me.

 

[TheLightWithin]

I've been searching for a short way to say the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, without using a misleading word like "persons." I found it! I'll just say "the Three." In this thread, when I say "the Three," it will mean "the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit."

Using a number as a noun can be done.
But when a number is used as a noun it is usually in substitute for another noun.
What if someone were to ask you "the three what?" though? What would you call it?

 

[TheLightWithin]

'Person' has come down from the Latin, persona, but the term today carries a lot of baggage, and furthermore has lost sight of what the Latin originally meant – a quick look will reveal that persona refers to the mask used by actors to portray characters in the theatre of the day.

More accurately, and more relevantly, the word is the conjunction of per ('through') and sonare (verb: 'to sound'), coming round to the mask 'through which the voice sounds' or through which the character manifests itself.

The Greek is prosopon (πρόσωπον) is similar, it can infer a face, a mask, a person or a manifestation of something. Again, in Greek theatre, it specifically referred to the masks actors wore to portray characters.

The term derives from the Greek prós ('toward') and ṓps (eye or face).

In both cases then, persona/prosopon can be read to infer something sounded or seen through – the manifestation of something unseen.

This is very helpful thanks!

 

[TheLightWithin]

That fact that one can't explain it is, in itself, not sufficient reason not to believe in it.

Why not?
I mean it is one thing if you could see a phenomenon and just have to accept you couldn't explain it but -
The Trinity is an idea.
So if you can neither see nor understand it -
What is it that obligates people to consider and believe?

 

[Longfellow]

Using a number as a noun can be done.
But when a number is used as a noun it is usually in substitute for another noun.
What if someone were to ask you "the three what?" though? What would you call it?

I haven't found any single word for it. It's three ways that God talks about Himself in the Bible. The Son is Jesus who is unquestionably a person whatever else He might be. The Father is another name for God who is the Three but also only one of the three, the one who is creating us and the world around us, and not at all what I would call a person. The Holy Spirit is like a person in some ways and not like a person in some ways. If you can think of a word for all three of them, I'm interested.

 

[Longfellow]

Why not?
I mean it is one thing if you could see a phenomenon and just have to accept you couldn't explain it but -
The Trinity is an idea.
So if you can neither see nor understand it -
What is it that obligates people to consider and believe?

Do you believe that the Schrodinger wave equation is true? Can you explain it?

 

[TheLightWithin]

Do you believe that the Schrodinger wave equation is true? Can you explain it?

No and no.

 

[Longfellow]

Now I’m thinking that Trinity theory is mostly or only smoke and mirrors around the fact that Jesus is a god, in every way that any Greek or Roman god is a god, with more authority and power than any of them. The reason that worshipping Jesus is not idolatry is not because He isn’t a god. It’s because God counts worshipping Jesus as worshipping Himself.

 

[Yahweh kid]

I wonder why the Son decided to sacrifice Himself for our sin and not the Father or the Holy Spirit.

 

[Longfellow]

I wonder why the Son decided to sacrifice Himself for our sin and not the Father or the Holy Spirit.

Do you mean, from a point of view of Him paying the price and taking the punishment for the sins of all people for all time?

 

[Yahweh kid]

Do you mean, from a point of view of Him paying the price and taking the punishment for the sins of all people for all time?

Yes, why Him and not the Father or the Spirit..... He was chosen...... Christ...Christos.

 

[Longfellow]

I see that I've been arguing for using metaphors in one discussion, and against it in another.

I've come around to thinking that metaphors for the Trinity might be helpful without doing harm, if people don't think that all other ways of thinking about God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are wrong. But I don't think that any analogies would be needed, if we answered the question of how worshiping Jesus is not idolatry, simply by saying that God counts worshiping Jesus as worshiping Him, God. Trinity theology feels to me like a needless monstrosity, a Rube Goldberg machine constructed with pieces from Greek philosophy that creates confusion, misunderstandings and divisions, without doing anything beneficial that couldn't be done better by simply saying that God counts worshiping Jesus as worshiping Him, God. If people want to make a Rube Goldberg machine out of that, let them, but don't treat it like God's own words, and substitute it in the place of the words of the Bible, or even worse, make people telling themselves that they believe it a requirement for salvation.

 

[Longfellow]

Using a number as a noun can be done.
But when a number is used as a noun it is usually in substitute for another noun.
What if someone were to ask you "the three what?" though? What would you call it?

While I was thinking about how to explain why there can’t be one word for the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, I thought of a word! It’s so simple and obvious, now that I think of it: names, The Three Names. There are three names in the Bible, “Father,” “Son” and “Holy Spirit,” that can be replaced with the name “God,” without changing any true statements into false ones, but it doesn’t work the other way around. We can’t always replace “God” with any of those names that we choose, without ever changing a true statement into a false one.

What I was going to say before I thought of that was that there isn’t any category that can be applied to who or what those names are about. First of all, there can’t be any category for the Father. He’s like Tigger, He’s the only one. That stops the search right there, for a category for what tge Three Names are about.

Another problem with “person,” if that isn’t enough, is that the Holy Spirit is not what anyone would call a person in any other context, so calling Them a person is guaranteed to create confusion, misunderstandings and controversy.

 

[Longfellow]

Yes, why Him and not the Father or the Spirit..... He was chosen...... Christ...Christos.

I’ll remind you that I don’t agree with saying that Jesus paid the debt or took the punishment for our sins. He is a sacrifice to end all sacrifices and a ransom to free us from slavery to the sinful side of our nature, but that has nothing to do with paying a debt or taking a punishment. With that disclaimer, imagining that he did that, I can think of possible answers to your question, but actually the question doesn’t make any sense to me. How could the Father or the Holy Spirit even be considered as the one to do that? In your story the Father is the one who has been cheated and dishonored. What sense would it make to settle the debt by paying Himself? That could only make sense for a national government. What sense would it make to punish Himself for the dishonor done to hi—oh, maybe I see, about as much sense as it makes to punish His Son.

For someone to pay our debt or take our punishment in our place, I don’t see how the Holy Spirit could have anything to do with it at all. I can picture Them looking from some work They’re doing and looking all around and behind them like “Who, Me? What? ??”

 

[EricPH]

John 17. I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name, the name you gave me, so that they may be one as we are one.

Could the greatest commandments possibly describe how Christ is One with the Father?

The Father loves the Son as he loves himself.

The Son loves the Father as he loves himself.

Could the spirit be the power of God’s love; working through the perfection of the greatest commandments?

1 Samuel 18-1, NIV version. Jonathan became one in spirit with David, and he loved him as himself.

Can there be any greater definition of ’Oneness’?

Jesus prayed that we should be ‘One’ in exactly the same way that he is ‘One with the Father’.

 

[Thomas]

You've pretty well covered why I don't say that they are persons.

But in Scripture they clearly are spoken of and act as persons – even the Holy Spirit.

I've come around to thinking that these analogies might be helpful in some ways beyond just a false feeling of understanding, but only if a person doesn't think that any other way of thinking is wrong.

Well that is, or should be, a given with any analogy of the Holy Trinity.

The best ones are not wrong, they're just not totally encompassing all the Trinity is. The nature of the Trinity, like the nature of God, is a mystery.

People seem to accept the idea that the human intellect cannot encompass God, but somehow should be able to encompass the Trinity.

I'm still feeling though, that a false feeling of understanding can get in the way of learning and growing from reading the Bible.

Which is why the vast majority of Trinitarian Christians don't fret it.

There is the apocryphal story of St Augustine, who walking along the sea shore was pondering the mystery of the Trinity. Then he sees a small boy, carrying a bucket of water from the sea and pouring it into a hole in the sand.
"What are you doing?"
"I'm emptying the ocean into this hole."
Augustine chuckles. "You'll never be able to empty that entire ocean into that little hole!"
The child looks up, "Well I've a better chance of doing that, than you have of understanding the Mystery of the Trinity."

There are many versions of the legend, but there is a lesson there.

When you say that a belief in the Trinity suffices in and of itself, I'm not sure if it's just to say that it suffices for the vast majority of Trinitarian Christians, or if it's also what you think Either way, I have some questions about it.

I mean it suffices those who believe it. My mum and dad believed in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, but they never asked how.

I do, I can't help myself, but I wonder about it, rather than expect to arrive at an answer. I absolutely believe it, and I find the
Council of Trent's dogmatic definition of Transubstantiation to be 'problematic', to say the least, but that doesn't effect my belief, it just affirms my belief that when the Church tries to 'define' a 'mystery' it'll get itself into trouble ...

One question is, what do you mean by a belief in the Trinity?

That God is Three and God is One.

Just to accept it as being true?

Within my contextual belief – upbringing, questioning, doubts and affirmations – it is not ill-founded, irrational or unreasonable... Just not explainable.

If so, to accept what as being true?

One God, Three Persons.

What the Bible says about the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, in its own words, or in the words of some bishops and theologians substituted in their place?

What Scripture says, and what the Tradition reasoned from what Scripture says.

I do not believe some bishops or theologians substituted anything, rather they saw the broader implication.

As an example, again in reference to the Eucharist, I do not accept the conciliar dogmatic definition as a sufficient 'definition', it's too reliant upon Medieval understandings of Aristotelian categories ... I much rather the Orthodox approach ... it's a mystery, therefore you'll never adequately define it.

Going further, my own interpretation of the New Testament goes 'beyond' orthodoxy.

There's the dualist argument of, say, the restoring sight to the man born blind (John 9).

The contemporary dualism, much favoured by the New Age type, is that it's a metaphor. John is talking about 'spiritual blindness', not physical blindness. Christ 'opens his eyes' to the greater truths and realities ... and thus separatist/dualist interpretation can be applied to every miracle. Nothing actually physically happened, it's all metaphor ...

My view is holistic, not dualistic. It's not a case of 'this, but not that', but rather, 'this and that'. The 'spiritual' interpretation of John 9 simply doesn't hold water. The man, his sight restored, has no idea who actually healed him. The miracle is told in the first eight verses, the rest, from 9-41 is the dispute that followed about whether it was the man, whether he was blind from birth, etc, etc. The text makes a nonsense of a purely spiritual reading.

So Jesus performs a miracle, restoring physical sight to a man born blind, with a spiritual lesson in mind. It's both. That's what the Incarnation is. It's this world and that world: "you are from this cosmos, I am not from this cosmos" (John 8:23b).

The trouble with 'spiritual interpretations' is, it's always analogy, it's always dualistic, it's always abstract, because that's the best the human can do.

Jesus, however, is something else. It's not abstract to Him.

That's why I believe in the Incarnation. In miracles. In Sacraments – it's all of a piece.

+++