Looking for good analogies for Trinity [Archive]

Cal_Minian

June 27th 2003, 08:13 PM

Today @ 04:38 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=134642#post134642)
yoki:

I was wondering if anyone has any really good analogies they would like to share that explains the dynamics of the Trinity: God is one Being, but there are three Persons.

Thanks.

It is interesting that you need an "analogy" for what is considered to be the central doctrine for Christians. All the other essential doctrines do not need analogies. Why? Because they are all taught in context by bible writers with all the primary elements necessary to recognize them.

The birth of Jesus to Mary was a miracle. We do not need an analogy for that. It is taught.

We do not need an analogy to understand Baptism or the Resurrection or any of the real essential Christian doctrines.

The reason one needs an analogy for the Trinity may be because it does not belong in true Christian belief.

For more detail, see my post on the subject at virgin http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5893&perpage=16&pagenumber=1

Kind Regards,
Cal_Minian

Sorry Cal, but please read the guidelines for this area of the forum. Advocating of doctrines which are clearly outside orthodoxy are not permitted. I will though let the readers know that you have written extensively on your Unitarian views and that they can go to the Christology forum if interested.

yoki

June 27th 2003, 09:07 PM

I really do not understand why this topic was moved from Theology, which is the study of God and His nature, to Ecclesiology which is the study of the Church.

Surely a question on the Trinity is a question about God and His nature and not about the Church?

Could someone please explain the logic behind the transference of this topic from Theology to here.

Thank you.

Dee Dee Warren

June 27th 2003, 09:12 PM

Sure Yoki, and feel free to PM me with further questions. It was a judgment call on my part because you seemed to be asking a more general question rather than the specific area in Theology 201 which deals with things such as omniscience, omnipresence and soteriology. I had to make a call based upon where it seemed to me your post was headed. If I misjudged it, let me know and I will move it back. Thank you.

mickiel

June 27th 2003, 09:14 PM

Today @ 12:38 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=134642#post134642)
yoki:

I was wondering if anyone has any really good analogies they would like to share that explains the dynamics of the Trinity: God is one Being, but there are three Persons.

Thanks.

How about fantasy island!

yoki

June 27th 2003, 10:09 PM

Today @ 07:43 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=134644#post134644)
Trinitarian:

I don't think that there are any really good analogies for the Trinity. With water (Vapor, Ice, Liquid) you get the heresy of Modalism, with the egg (Yolk, White, Shell) you get Tritheism. Choose your poison.

The best image (not an analogy) that we're given for the Trinity is persons-in-relation (see Jn. 17:11; 20-26). That is the best image that shows the unity of the Triune God. It is a unity of persons, bonded so intimately in relationship that they are one reality, one being. Hope that helps.

Grace and Peace.

Thank you Trinitarian. I can see why you would disregard those analogies you listed. But surely there are better ones than that.

The image you propose is simply restating that the Trinity is what it is. I find analogies useful, and this is what I seek.

Thanks again.

Piebald

June 27th 2003, 10:36 PM

The analogy I used before was that of a person with multiple personalities. Three distinct persons ("personality" being the qualities that make up a person, not moods) existing in one human being.

Of course you will get snickers and people claiming that it would mean that God has a mental illness. But God existing in this manner doesn't mean he's mentally ill anymore than God's lack of feathers indicates he has an illness which causes him to be featherless. If God is tri-personal than that's his nature.

Of course, It's been pointed out that I'm using a different definition of "person" than the 1st century Christians, so I'm going to have to re-evaluate this analogy.

SaintMorpheus

June 27th 2003, 10:46 PM

One way I conceptualize the Trinity (at least the first two Persons) is by considering the Logos as the "self-consciousness" of God (I think Calvin may have said something like this ... please don't consider it original on my part). Here's a little thang I wrote somewhat to that effect (w. some other ideas about salvation as well):

In the beginning, God thought.
Who could now imagine the concept of a material universe without having first experienced it? Who could merely imagine a new color, even after having mastered the color wheel? Yet there was nothing; not even the notion of nothingness. And God brought forth everything without having first experienced it. He thought the first thought and spoke the first words.
This first thought was about Himself. It was so accurate that it was Himself. Thus God demonstrated His complete power to communicate reality.
Like a skydiver, this eternal Word of God dropped from the eternal Mind of God and wasted no time in striving for terminal velocity; the manifest glory of the Triune Godhead packed away like a parachute and slowly unfurled as the Word soared through the history of mankind. First the lead chute shot upward – this was the general revelation, or Creation, which in itself proclaimed the glory of God. It fluttered around in the wind and mankind caught mere glimpses of the Face of the Transcendent God in brilliant theophanies recorded by the ancient prophets, leading the way for the thundering expanse of the main chute, the Culmination and Joy of Everything, the historical God-Man, the Resurrected Christ.
Thus the Cosmos sprang from the mind of God, and creation was born.
Then the Word brought forth the first truly frightening reality in the universe: a creation with creative abilities, the Micro-cosmos. Something went bump in the night of chaos. Something with a mind, something based on God’s own experience of Himself. In His own image He created them, male and female and they were not original.
Naming the animals was one of the many expressions of the divine privilege of creativity given to them. He also gave them the task of cultivating the ground and ruling over the animals, entrusting them with the responsibility of confirming as alternative minds the Reality which had moments before resided in only one Mind.
Because this Mind was the author, expresser, and therefore interpreter of Reality, to step out of His way of thinking about the Cosmos would be ungodliness, the great cosmic insanity. The world would cease to make sense, and would therefore become chaos in the pitifully small mind of man. Powerlessly faced with the great Nothingness of unreality, the natural result would be a fall to the mere animal plane of existence and return to dust.
So it happened. No longer were they content to live reality listening at the feet of God as they communed with Him in His creation; they wanted to interpret reality for themselves through the knowledge of good and evil.
And now they are resigned to live an empty existence apart from Him, tragically repeating their First Parent’s attempt to find life within themselves, and thus they will lead perishing lives. Until He comes to them…

Trinitarian

June 30th 2003, 11:54 AM

06-28-2003 @ 03:09 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=134728#post134728)
yoki:

Thank you Trinitarian. I can see why you would disregard those analogies you listed. But surely there are better ones than that.

The image you propose is simply restating that the Trinity is what it is. I find analogies useful, and this is what I seek.

Thanks again.

Then maybe, I just don't know any of the good ones. I guess that at least serves to eliminate prblematic analogies.

Augustine, in De Trinitate argued for several different analogies, which I also have difficulty with. Such as Memory, Understanding and Will. The problem that I see with such psychological analogies is that they make the persons of the Trinity into facets of the intellect of the individual person. This both smack of Platonic philosophy and yeilds an overly individualistic model of the Trinity.

So again, I'm inclined to see persons-in-relation as the only way to really explicate the Trinity in a coherent way.

But if some analogies arise that have merit, I'll be all over them. :yummy:

Spokoina

June 30th 2003, 12:15 PM

The analogy I like the best is this:

A marriage. Three beings in one marriage, all one.

Adam one with God, Eve, one with God, Adam and Eve one with each other. Adam and Eve in the image of God. Even one 'flesh'.

It is the foundation for new life to be created, the birth of children.

Jesus, the last Adam, one with God, the holy spirit, one with God, Jesus and the holy spirit one. Jesus, the visible image of the invisible God. The foundation for new birth, new life, spiritually.

Three in one.

JCA

June 30th 2003, 12:40 PM

I happen to like analogies too.. so I'll give it a go.. :teeth:

Imagine God as a Spider Plant, growing on a plain of the Holy Spirit.. God is the Plant itself, it's sap, which is drawn from the ground, is the Spirit of God.

And then one day the Spider Plant grows a 'shoot'.. one of the branches touches the 'plain' and another Spider Plant forms.. has it's own roots, draws it's own sap, but still is attached to the main plant via the one branch, and the sap they both share.

And so you have the main plant (God), it's offspring (Christ), and the sap that feeds them both (The Holy Spirit), and the branch/shoot that is shared between them.

And there you have the symbiotic relationship of the Trinity.

Sorry if it's not a good one, but I actually just got up and fell into this chair.. and so it will need some refinement..

But is that the kind of thing you are looking for?

IN Love and Peace

JCA

PS - If you've never had a Spider Plant, you may not be able to picture what I mean about the off-shooting branch. If you ever see how they grow, you will know what I mean. As I said, needs refinement :smile:

yoki

July 1st 2003, 07:59 PM

Yesterday @ 12:40 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=135978#post135978)
JCA:

I happen to like analogies too.. so I'll give it a go.. :teeth:

Imagine God as a Spider Plant, growing on a plain of the Holy Spirit.. God is the Plant itself, it's sap, which is drawn from the ground, is the Spirit of God.

And then one day the Spider Plant grows a 'shoot'.. one of the branches touches the 'plain' and another Spider Plant forms.. has it's own roots, draws it's own sap, but still is attached to the main plant via the one branch, and the sap they both share.

And so you have the main plant (God), it's offspring (Christ), and the sap that feeds them both (The Holy Spirit), and the branch/shoot that is shared between them.

And there you have the symbiotic relationship of the Trinity.

Sorry if it's not a good one, but I actually just got up and fell into this chair.. and so it will need some refinement..

But is that the kind of thing you are looking for?

IN Love and Peace

JCA

PS - If you've never had a Spider Plant, you may not be able to picture what I mean about the off-shooting branch. If you ever see how they grow, you will know what I mean. As I said, needs refinement :smile:

Sorry JCA, I'm not familiar with spider plants so I'm having a difficult time envisioning how this would work.

Anyway, I came across what I thought was a really good analogy a while ago, and I was wondering if anyone had a better one for the Trinity. Here it is.

The Father is the Sun; the Son is the Light, and the Holy Spirit is Heat.

The Light proceeds from the Sun and the Heat proceeds from the Light -- this makes it kosher for the western branch of the church. But then, it could be worked to fit in with the Eastern Orthodox tradition too.

The Sun is not the Light, nor is the Light the Sun; the Sun is not the Heat, nor is the Heat the Sun; the Light is not the Heat, nor is the Heat the Light. Yet, all three are co-dependant on oneanother and work in a harmonious relationship that brings life to the Earth.

Dee Dee Warren

July 1st 2003, 08:08 PM

Yoki that is good, thank you for sharing that. I go wild when I hear people give the apple or egg analogy.

Socrates

July 1st 2003, 09:49 PM

Hmm, analogies have their advantages, but can also mislead when taken too far. Water at the triple point might work, because then all three phases are present at once in equilibrium. This is not Modalist Monarchianist/Sabellian heresy of the United Pentecostals which states that God appears as only one mode at a time.

I think Basil thought of the eternal generation of the Son by the Father was like light emanating from the sun. The light doesn't exist without the sun, and the Father and Son like the sun emanating light -- the light doesn't exist apart from the sun, and neither is the sun anything without the light. NB, Basil took Genesis literally and believed the sun was created on Day 4 and immediately took over the job as the producer of light on Earth.

Jezz on another thread resorted to dimension theory, e.g. a sphere is 3-D, but its projection on 2-D flatland is a circle. The circle has all the fullness of the sphere in the 2-D space. Jesus is fully human and fully divine, so all the fullness of God was localized in His human presence. This seems to line up with Hebrews 1:3

The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being.

The word translated "exact representation" means the precise reproduction in every respect of something stamped onto a surface.

According to a friend who is now a Bible College principle, the famous mathematician Cantor used the different types of infinity he came up with to explain the Trinity. Cantor's notion of a countably infinite set doesn't mean he could physically count it, but one whose members could be matched in a one-to-one correspondence with the set of counting numbers, with a cardinal number called aleph-null. So the set of even numbers qualifies, even though it's a subset, because you can match the counting numbers 1,2,3, ... N ... to 2x1, 2x2, 2x3 .... 2xN ... Also, all the rational numbers can be matched up to counting numbers, but the set of real numbers cannot be, so that is an uncountable infinity. So with infinite sets, a subset can have the same cardinal number as the superset. In the Bible, we read that in Christ, all the fullness of the Godhead dwells, but we also know that Jesus is not the Father or the Holy Spirit. Cantor thought that his mathematical studies provided an analogy for the relations of each Person of the Trinity to the one Being of God.

darcutm

July 2nd 2003, 11:12 PM

okok....
tell me what you think about this one...I've used this many times to explain to people and I think it's rather a close analogy in a way to describe it.
The trinity can be looked at, kind of like, say a basketball team. We say A basketball team and refer to it as one cohesive team. The team as one works together, thinks together, agrees ahead of time without there being any thought (we will score, we will keep them from scoring, etc etc...)
Now within this team we have separate distinct members on the team. Each with their own distinct position, role, and job to fulfill.
Well...let me know if any one likes it....

JCA

July 2nd 2003, 11:32 PM

Hmm.. well okay...

You see, if you take an apple... er.. no, wait.. get an egg.. umm.. :lol:

Let me try this one that someone shared with me just yesterday actually..

The Trinity is the name of a 3 piece band.. The strings (HS) - no matter what they be - can capture the soul, while the percussion (God) can fill you with rythm, or crush you into submission.. and the Vocals (Christ) will captivate your heart and mind with His words.. together each have their own domain, but without each other the song is not complete.

Do you think it's just the people I know? (snicker)

In Love and Peace

JCA

AVmetro

July 3rd 2003, 05:21 PM

I refrain from using analogies in debates with Unitarians. I'd rather them just account for what scripture says. The "I can't understand" argument against the Trinity is laughable. :no:

Belteshazzar

July 3rd 2003, 06:26 PM

yoki

July 3rd 2003, 07:03 PM

Today @ 06:26 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=139038#post139038)
Belteshazzar:

Time is a good analogy. At any instant, time is comprised of the past, present, and future. All are distinct, yet still a part of something we all recognize as time. There's also a mysterious nature to time, but perhaps that is another subject.

Jerry

Yes Jerry, that is a good one. Thanks.

One off topic question: Do you think that God's view of our future is similar to our own memory of our past? In other words, is our future merely a memory of God's?

Trinitarian

July 3rd 2003, 07:17 PM

In my thoughts the other day an analogy came to me in my reflections on Psalm 33:6,

By the word of the LORD the heavens were made
and by the breath of his mouth all their hosts. (English Standard Version)

In canonical perspective, the concepts of the Word and Breath (Ruach in Hebrew and Pneuma in Greek) are developed with reference to the Son and Holy Spirit. Then my thoughts drifted back to my readings in Kevin Vanhoozer's book First Theology in which he talks about understanding the Triune God as communicative agent.

Anyway, all of this led me to think the analogy like this: the concepts of Speech, Word and Breath provide an anology to Father, Son and Spirit. The Speech is the full form of the communication that is given, however it is renered intelligible and delivered through the medium (mediator) of the Word and it is the Word that constitutes the Speech. Vice versa, the Word has no meaning apart from it's relationship to the Speech, isolated words have no meaning, thus the Speech and the Word are mutally constitutive of each other. Likewise Breath animates the Speech and actualizes the vocalization of the Word. Without the Breath, not only could the Word not be spoken and the Speech not be communicated, but the Communicative agent would cease to exist.

Thus the elements of Speech, Word and Breath constitute the Communicative Action in the same way as the persons of the Father, Son and Spirit constituted the Triune God of the Christian confession.

What think ye?

Worthy is the Lamb.

Belteshazzar

July 3rd 2003, 09:22 PM

yoki:

Do you think that God's view of our future is similar to our own memory of our past? In other words, is our future merely a memory of God's?

Whewwww.... thats a tough one. What do you think? That view has some interesting ramifications, especially if any Calvinists are following this thread. :smile:

I don't think we can ever know for certain but I believe that God transcends time in a way that we can never understand. That doesn't exactly answer your question, but I think its possible there are an almost infinite number of 'universes' in which each decision or quantum variation is played out and that our current existence reflects a path along one of these multitude of variant paths. I think God sees all of the possible paths in the past, present, and future but we are continuously make choices deciding which possible path to take.

Jerry

Sher

July 4th 2003, 02:38 AM

07-01-2003 @ 08:08 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=137165#post137165)
Dee Dee Warren:

Yoki that is good, thank you for sharing that. I go wild when I hear people give the apple or egg analogy.

I agree ... nothing worse than a bad apple analogy :no:

:teeth:

FirstSunday33ad

July 4th 2003, 11:42 AM

Time is a good analogy. At any instant, time is comprised of the past, present, and future. All are distinct, yet still a part of something we all recognize as time. There's also a mysterious nature to time, but perhaps that is another subject.

I like the time analogy best. It seems to describe God better than the others I have read. Time is continuous, ever present, and eternal. The ‘Present’ is always NOW, no past no future, The Past is also always immediately behind the NOW, so much so that it is impossible to clearly define where it ends and the present begins. It simply is always there. The same is true with the future. It is always immediately in front of the present but seemingly impossible to separate from the present. Three distinct attributes but all existing as a single whole.

clarity

July 6th 2003, 04:21 AM

This is the way I have always viewed the trintiy:

God is one God, in three parts.

God created man in his image.

Therefore, man is in three parts as well.

God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. One God, three parts.

Man is Spirit, body and soul. One entitiy, three parts.

These three parts dwell simultaneously.

God: The Father represents the head, and the Life giver.
The Holy Spirit reprsents the Comforter, the voice of God.
The Son reprsents the body, the image of God.

Man: The Spirit is like the Father....the head and eternal life of us. The Soul is like the Holy Spirit...where our emotions and intellect are housed. The Son is like our bodies...the image of our soul and spirit.

Jezz

July 29th 2003, 09:09 PM

Socrates:
Jezz on another thread resorted to dimension theory, e.g. a sphere is 3-D, but its projection on 2-D flatland is a circle. The circle has all the fullness of the sphere in the 2-D space. Jesus is fully human and fully divine, so all the fullness of God was localized in His human presence. This seems to line up with Hebrews 1:3

The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being.

The word translated "exact representation" means the precise reproduction in every respect of something stamped onto a surface.
Oi, somebody's been talking about me behind my back... :wink:

I just thought I'd point out that when I made that analogy, I didn't so much have the Trinity in mind. The analogy was more geared towards the hypostasis of Jesus as man (the circle) and Jesus as God (the sphere). Thus, the analogy might be incomplete when you try to apply it to the Trinity.

There have been some good analogies put forward in this thread. I've been trying to come up with my own analogy of the Trinity... I haven't fully fleshed it out yet, but here's a brief overview (apologies to people who don't know anything about Star Trek...)

Think about the Borg. They are a race with many individuals, but only one collective will. The individuals each have their own centre of consciousness and are capable of performing different tasks. However, the individuals are all connected to each other through a sort of mental "umbilical cord", which unites them with a common collective will and purpose. Now, imagine that there were only three people in the Borg race. These three people would form a Trinity - separate centres of consciousness, each of them individually Borg. All of them are equal in power and ability (c.f. ontological equivalence) - but this does not preclude that one may voluntarily submit to the orders of another (c.f. functional subordination of the Son to the Father). However, there is only one collective consciousness - to use the language of the Shema: "the Borgs is one".

I think this analogy fits very well with a number of Trinitarian passages in the Bible. The Shema (as just mentioned), for example. Also, the bit in John where Jesus says "the Son can only do what he sees the Father doing, because whatever the Father does, the Son does also" - showing that the Father and Son are connected by a similar "mental umbilical cord" that the Borg are.

Also worth noting is that in such a collective consciousness, whatever hurts one member of the collective, hurts them all. Which gives one an appreciation for the self-sacrifice that the Father made when his Son was crucified - he felt the pain every bit as much as Jesus himself.

To tie this analogy back in with the hypostasis analogy - well, consider each of the three Borg to be "spheres".

Jezz

August 2nd 2003, 11:59 PM

darcutm:

okok....
tell me what you think about this one...I've used this many times to explain to people and I think it's rather a close analogy in a way to describe it.
The trinity can be looked at, kind of like, say a basketball team. We say A basketball team and refer to it as one cohesive team. The team as one works together, thinks together, agrees ahead of time without there being any thought (we will score, we will keep them from scoring, etc etc...)
Now within this team we have separate distinct members on the team. Each with their own distinct position, role, and job to fulfill.
Well...let me know if any one likes it....
I just realised that this is actually similar to my Borg analogy. Except, I think in the Borg analogy the concept of the "collective will" of the individual members is much stronger than in a basketball team. A basketball team would ideally work as one cohesive team with a common will, working together, thinking together, and agreeing ahead of time without there being any thought - but in practice, a basketball team is suboptimal in its unity.

I think if you take the basketball team analogy, drop two players from the team :smile: and throw in an intimate mental connection between the three players (such as what the Borg have), then you'd have a pretty good analogy of the Trinity.

Thoughts anyone? I realise this is an old thread that I joined late, but I was hoping to get some feedback on the quality (or otherwise :wink:) of the Borg analogy. :smile:

annapail

November 15th 2006, 12:36 AM

Dorothy Sayers, the British writer, has an excellent analogy of the Trinity that has really helped me. "A writer has an idea. Then the writer exerts energy the results in a book - the incarnation of the idea. Then comes the creative power by which the idea, expressed in the book, enter into and influences those who read the book and who, by reading it, enter into a relationship with the author. Idea, energy and creataive power, though distiguishable from one another, are not three things, but three aspects of a single thing. The notion that God is one in three and three in one is not so foreign to human experience as sometimes thought."
from Glorius Companions by Richard Schmidt. other info on Dorothy Sayers is available the Marion Wade Center at Wheaton University. Hope this sparks some thought.

Shazard

November 15th 2006, 02:12 AM

I was wondering if anyone has any really good analogies they would like to share that explains the dynamics of the Trinity: God is one Being, but there are three Persons.
Thanks.

I have one.

Book in unknown language - Father
Book translated into English - Son
What you get when you read the Book - Holy Spirit

One book in three books where each of them is not other two and still they are one.

PJ1962

July 22nd 2008, 02:04 PM

I think the family is the best "analogy" - that is, there is only one (singular in essence) Smith family, but there are 5 persons in that one family. And my son is 100% Smith, but he is not me, and I am 100% Smith, but I am not my son or my wife. And no one person of the Smith family constitutes the whole one Smith family. (Of course, this does not suggest that the HS is the "wife" in the Godhead).

The analogy maybe lacking in precision, but looked at this way the Trinity is not totally mysterious. BTW this dawned on me while reading Gen. 2:24. Hope it helps.

AngelDragon

July 22nd 2008, 02:09 PM

One analogy that I liked was that the Trinity is like three computers hooked up and operating through one main server. Each computer has its own tasks and properties but is considered a part of that one server.

Interestingly enough, that analogy came from an atheist.

historic salve

July 22nd 2008, 02:14 PM

Analogies for the Trinity are always confusing or unhelpful, even leading to heretical belief. In fact, I find that analogies in general are unhelpful when trying to teach a concept. The wise guy you're telling them to always stretches the analogy too far.

5Pointer

July 22nd 2008, 02:17 PM

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/edwards/trinity/files/trinity.html

Not really an analogy, but this is Jonathan Edwards on the trinity and is very helpful to me. Not that the trinity will be explained by a mere essay or analogy anyway. But this helps me.

Elegy

July 22nd 2008, 02:40 PM

historic salve

July 22nd 2008, 02:55 PM

I generally don't like analogies of the Trinity because they're extremely limited--either they're flat-out wrong or they provide what's probably only a tiny part of the larger picture. The one that's definitely been the most helpful to me, though, has been the analogy of a human being (which clarity already mentioned, but in slightly different terms than the way I think about it). A human being has essentially 3 parts: body, mind, and spirit. I usually equate God with the mind, Jesus with the body, and the Holy Spririt with the spirit. This makes sense in the context of man's creation in the image of God, and it's also easy to relate to personally.
Actually, the tripartite view of man is a Platonic one, not a Christian or Jewish one. :eww: The Christian/Jewish view has always been that man is composed of two parts, a body and an energizing principle (sometimes here the words soul and spirit are used interchangeably). But since God is simple, he has no parts. It is therefore a mistake to view the Persons of the Trinity as parts.

lakely

July 22nd 2008, 05:12 PM

Suject, object and verb. All 3 are needed to make a Whole sentence.

Elegy

July 22nd 2008, 07:41 PM

historic salve, I was not attempting to pin down the nature of man--that would make for a much longer and more involved study. I was just giving a faulty, (as are all the others I've seen here), but relatable, representation. And I think it's extremely obvious that God cannot be divided into "parts." I'm sorry if my word choice offended you.

evenclem

December 5th 2008, 05:19 AM

the stupid analogy of heat, light and sun is simply polytheism...Christianity is monotheistic..

{Tim}

December 5th 2008, 09:28 AM

the stupid analogy of heat, light and sun is simply polytheism...Christianity is monotheistic..
No, that's the point, it's not polytheism -- there is still only ONE sun. Neither the light or heat can exist without the sun, but the sun is not really a sun without the light and heat also. [In the analogy, the sun (the object) would be the father, while the combined object, light, heat would be God, the Trinity.]

I actually rather like this analogy, though I suspect it may have some flaws - if you can see any, point them out!

bc1980

December 9th 2008, 08:59 PM

I've read through these examples and like all analogies they come up short. But we are trying to explain the unexplainable.

However, the best one I've heard is the traditional pretzel analogy, you know, 3 circles-in-one. No matter where you bite it, it taste like God because its all made of the same stuff.

Of course, there are holes in that analogy also, pun intended.

JediWithASniper

January 5th 2009, 03:54 AM

ApologiaPhoenix

January 5th 2009, 08:31 AM

I don't know if anyone has said this, but here is one.

Most people look at the Trinity, and think in there heads, how is 1+1+1 = 1? But the truth is that it is not 1+1+1, it is 1x1x1 = 1. See the difference?:smile:

But what are you multiplying? That aspect makes no sense.

Ultimately, I wish we would just drop analogies of the Trinity. They tend to lead to more problems than they solve.

JediWithASniper

January 5th 2009, 01:47 PM

But what are you multiplying? That aspect makes no sense.

Father x Son x Holy Spirit = one God. 1x1x1 = 1. It's pretty simple really, it is a mathematical solution to the Trinity. So sort of it is not an analogy, but it makes plain sense if you understand a little math, or are very logically inclined.

RBerman

January 5th 2009, 02:43 PM

JediWithASniper

January 5th 2009, 04:27 PM

The problem is that "Father times Son times Spirit" does not refer to anything meaningful, any more than "Bob times Joe times Sam" does. An analogy compares one meaningful thing with another meaningful thing. "Times" when applied to a person has no meaning.

You don't understand your math very well then, any mathematician will tell you that our entire universe is based upon mathematics, and as a result, math plays a heavy role in things such as theology.

The problem being addressed is how do 3 persons make one God, and very simply, you can achieve that in math by multiply 1 times itself. God is a repetition of Himself to achieve that. So the meaning is vastly infinite.

God times himself, and times himself again still equals God. But each of those numbers, or persons if you will still exist.

ApologiaPhoenix

January 5th 2009, 04:29 PM

Explain how you multiply a person by a person. I understand Math and it doesn't make sense.

Pumbelo

January 5th 2009, 06:30 PM

Maybe you should start with a definition, rather than an analogy?

JediWithASniper

January 5th 2009, 08:51 PM

Explain how you multiply a person by a person. I understand Math and it doesn't make sense.

It is quite obvious that I am not multiplying a person times a person, I am multiplying a number times a number. If you can't follow the logic, just give up.

Each person represents a number, 1. you have one person, there is one of them, and that one person only equals one do you get it?

If you have three people that all claim to be the same God, as the scriptures teach. Yet the scriptures say there is only one God, you have a paradigm.

How are the three one? As I said before, it is achieved through multiplication, rather than addition.

RBerman

January 6th 2009, 02:15 AM

If you can't follow the logic, just give up.
I do give up, for indeed I cannot follow your thinking. I am apparently not alone in this, which might cause you to reconsider whether your analogy is helpful or not.

JediWithASniper

January 7th 2009, 08:52 PM

I have more than sufficiently explained this. The only known way in math to make three turn into one is the formula I showed.

RBerman

January 8th 2009, 09:26 AM

ApologiaPhoenix

January 8th 2009, 07:40 PM

It is quite obvious that I am not multiplying a person times a person, I am multiplying a number times a number. If you can't follow the logic, just give up.

Each person represents a number, 1. you have one person, there is one of them, and that one person only equals one do you get it?

If you have three people that all claim to be the same God, as the scriptures teach. Yet the scriptures say there is only one God, you have a paradigm.

How are the three one? As I said before, it is achieved through multiplication, rather than addition.

You say each person represents a number so you multiply them instead of adding them which seems ad hoc to me.

One God. Three persons. You can add the persons and still have one God.

JediWithASniper

January 8th 2009, 08:13 PM

1) Your statement about math is false. For instance, (1^1)^1=1 as well. So does 1-1+1=1. And 1/1/1=1.

2) The problem is that the math analogy isn't helpful since God's nature is not one of different dimensions multiplied, powered, added, subtracted, or divided. It's just unhelpful as saying, "The word 'one' has three letters O-N-E but means '1'." OK, that's true, but how exactly does it help us to grasp that our one God has three persons in eternal perfect communion?

Sorry, I misstated it, what I meant to say was this, the only way to create one out of three without eliminating parts as you would have to do with subtraction, or division, is through that formula.

I understand your 2nd point, and my goal is not to help grasp the trinity, just to give a mathematical explanation of it.

I once heard Walter Martin say that to be able to understand, or grasp the Trinity, it would be necessary for you to be apart of the Trinity.

I also once read a very good definition of the Trinity by Jonathan Edwards, if you like, I can post it here.

You say each person represents a number so you multiply them instead of adding them which seems ad hoc to me.

One God. Three persons. You can add the persons and still have one God.

That is a good point, I am going to think about it for a while.

RBerman

January 9th 2009, 11:21 AM

I'd like to read Jonathan Edwards on the Trinity. He is generally solid.

themuzicman

January 9th 2009, 11:25 AM

The only potential analogy given by Scripture is a mystery, as well, but it seems that marriage is your best choice. (See Genesis 1-2)

JediWithASniper

January 9th 2009, 11:55 AM

Well, here is a link to what appears to be the same supposition that I have in a book, it may be slightly different, as it appears to be a bit more lengthy than the one in my book. I have found this analogy to be very interesting, perhaps incorrect, or maybe correct, but very intriguing.

Hope you enjoy it.

http://www.piney.com/HsJonEdw.html

RBerman

January 11th 2009, 05:57 PM

Thanks for the link. I like Edwards, but I think he over-reached himself in this case. He's trying to articulate the meaning of Jesus being "begotten" beyond the authority relationship between the Father and the Son. I don't think Scripture supports his idea that the Son is the Father thinking about Himself so much that the mental image comes to life, so to speak. And while it's true that the activity of God in the hearts of men is the activity of the Spirit, I also understand the Father to be active (sustaining all things, including people) and the Son to be active (ruling, interceding before the Father).