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.