Thoughts about Trinity beliefs

Longfellow

Longfellow

Well-Known Member
Messages
325
Reaction score
110
Points
43
Location
here and there around the world
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. :D

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.
 
Last edited:
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."
 
Longfellow said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

Longfellow said:
There's a complication here.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Thomas said:
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.
Click to expand...
You've pretty well covered why I don't say that they are persons. :D 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.

Thomas said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?

Thomas said:
That fact that one can't explain it is, in itself, not sufficient reason not to believe in it.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
 
Last edited:
Longfellow said:
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.
Click to expand...
Other than your questioning of the word person, what you are saying sounds like orthodox trinitarianism to me.
 
Longfellow said:
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."
Click to expand...
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?
 
Thomas said:
'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.
Click to expand...
This is very helpful thanks!
 
Thomas said:
That fact that one can't explain it is, in itself, not sufficient reason not to believe in it.
Click to expand...
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?
 
TheLightWithin said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top