The Trinity

[shunyadragon]

I guess as I was saying the Son is always the prophet/priest /king/judge for the Father. So the Father thinks, so the the Son says. The Spirit is the means of communication between the two.

The same relationship is translated to humans, where they become in a Christ position, communicating through the Son and Word by the Spirit to and from the Father, and they too become sons of God. Thus if you take out the Son and Spirit then you cut the Father off from humans and then He isn't God to them anymore.

So I can't see the Father in a stand-alone-position as the One God when it comes to humans knowing Him. It would be like His Voice of the Spirit and Word of the Son being silenced, and no one would hear from any God then, He would be non-existent to them.

This view is putting human assumptions on how God must be to be a theistic God. I do not believe the nature of God and God's relationship with Creation and humanity is dependent on the human view of a Doctrine of one religion.

[Kane]

I know that many people think that the concept of the Trinity is illogical. How can three be one, and one be three? I don't know what the problem is, though, if "God" is understood as a collective. For example, a mother, a father, and a son are three different people, but they are one family. Family is a collective noun.

Do you think this understanding is consistent with the Christian scriptures?

I agree with ApologiaPhoenix that the family analogy fails, specifically because, unlike the Trinity, a family is not co-equally the same, all being one while being separate "people", as it were.

[Rainbow Brite]

This view is putting human assumptions on how God must be to be a theistic God. I do not believe the nature of God and God's relationship with Creation and humanity is dependent on the human view of a Doctrine of one religion.

It's just the sum of what the Bible says about functions of the Son and Spirit in allowing humans access to God the Father, or God at all, according to my reading. The discussion is not to say Trinity is the only way, it's to explain why the biblical Trinity is not 3 gods since that would imply different gods can be accessed separately as gods. Where the biblical God can only be accessed as God by the 3 persons working together as God.

[audio]

Why couldn't the Trinity be talked about as parts making up one whole? I guess I'm lacking imagination as to what else can be referred to the Son who emanates from the Father, or the Spirit proceeding from both? It doesn't sound to me as though they are simple aspects of the whole thing, as either one makes his own decisions (even though never disagreeing on anything) in each one's own mind. They're obviously not the same "thing," even though they do share the same substance.

I'm also confused about the word "Godhead" (Godhood, right?). Doesn't it denote more than one God in the state of Godhead? Say, like knighthood, neighborhood, etc?

I'm feeling incredibly shallow headed here.

[Kane]

Why couldn't the Trinity be talked about as parts making up one whole? I guess I'm lacking imagination as to what else can be referred to the Son who emanates from the Father, or the Spirit proceeding from both? It doesn't sound to me as though they are simple aspects of the whole thing, as either one makes his own decisions (even though never disagreeing on anything) in each one's own mind. They're obviously not the same "thing," even though they do share the same substance.

I'm also confused about the word "Godhead" (Godhood, right?). Doesn't it denote more than one God in the state of Godhead? Say, like knighthood, neighborhood, etc?

I'm feeling incredibly shallow headed here.

Godhead is a title connoting the sovereignty of the Trinity over everything. In that sense, the title 'Godhead' does not imply more than one god; it does imply more than one person that constitutes the one God expressed in triunity.

Don't feel shallow. What practical purpose does that serve? I think you're doing the right thing by asking questions and gaining information. I also think not asking your questions to gain information would, in fact, be shallow.

Inquisitiveness is not shallowness.

[OneSizeFit]

I agree with ApologiaPhoenix that the family analogy fails, specifically because, unlike the Trinity, a family is not co-equally the same, all being one while being separate "people", as it were.

It more so fails because where is the feminine in the equation? You can't have a complete family without a mother.

[Kane]

It more so fails because where is the feminine in the equation? You can't have a complete family without a mother.

This comment can be taken in all sorts of political directions. But to save us all from the drudgery of that kind of tripe, I'll stick to the first question, "...where is the feminine in the equation?"

Quite simply, whoever the biblical authors were, they referred to the spirit of god in the feminine declension, unanimously. The word in the NT is/was πνεύμα (pneuma), and in the OT the more common word was (ruach) רוּחַ

There's the feminine in the equation, at least grammatically.

[OneSizeFit]

Yes, but ask any by the book Christian here if the Holy Spirit is male or female. It is also a point of interest that the Spirit of the OT, the ruach, is not the same spirit "given" by Christ. But the point is still that the family comparison fails unless you are into an all male family thing...ahem.

[audio]

Yes, but ask any by the book Christian here if the Holy Spirit is male or female. It is also a point of interest that the Spirit of the OT, the ruach, is not the same spirit "given" by Christ. But the point is still that the family comparison fails unless you are into an all male family thing...ahem.

IMVHO, that's not what the analogy is for. If the analogy is intended to illustrate conceptually how "many" can be "one," it doesn't matter what sex each member is. Unless, if it's being discussed who, in a relationship, submits to whom in the Trinity, and how that is reflected in judeochristian family structure.

It's hard enough to begin categorizing a spirit's sex, no matter if Jesus calls the spirit he proceeds from "Father."

[Kane]

IMVHO, that's not what the analogy is for. If the analogy is intended to illustrate conceptually how "many" can be "one," it doesn't matter what sex each member is. Unless, if it's being discussed who, in a relationship, submits to whom in the Trinity, and how that is reflected in judeochristian family structure.

This is special pleading. If the analogy of the 'family' is going to be used, it has to be complete. So saying, the 'family' model needs to be defined. Which can lead to some very peculiar discussions about the analogous nature of the trinity.

In any case, given that this board consists mainly of mainline evangelical Christians, we can reasonably assume that the 'family' being referred to is the notion of a nuclear family. That is, a father, mother, and child.

Going back to the analogy then, the parallel would run as follows:

Father = dad
Holy Spirit = mother
Jesus = son

And with that kind of an analogy, we can return to the point that the analogy fails. In a family, the mother, father, and son are not co-equally the same, co-equally one but in three persons, or even genderless (excepting Christ, of course).

It's hard enough to begin categorizing a spirit's sex, no matter if Jesus calls the spirit he proceeds from "Father."

"Hard-enough" doesn't begin to cut it. We know literally nothing substantive about spiritual realities, if they even exist. So determining the 'gender' of a spirit is a useless conversation.

[audio]

This is special pleading. If the analogy of the 'family' is going to be used, it has to be complete

How complete would it need to be for you to be a valid analogy? Every analogy breaks down at some point, which means you could invalidate every analogy on the face of this earth by pointing out characteristics of what is being created an analogy for, and how that isn't reflected in the analogy. I might be wrong on this, but the point of analogies is not to provide parallels for every characteristic of whatever is being described via analogy.

Which can lead to some very peculiar discussions about the analogous nature of the trinity.

In any case, given that this board consists mainly of mainline evangelical Christians, we can reasonably assume that the 'family' being referred to is the notion of a nuclear family. That is, a father, mother, and child.

Going back to the analogy then, the parallel would run as follows:

Father = dad
Holy Spirit = mother
Jesus = son

And with that kind of an analogy, we can return to the point that the analogy fails.

However, maybe we're trying to find an analogy for "three in one," in which case the sex of members of the family doesn't even need to be addressed.

I'm not saying the family is a good analogy for the trinity, I'm just saying that it isn't necessary to include the reproductive qualities of each member in the analogy, since that isn't what is being discussed.

"Hard-enough" doesn't begin to cut it. We know literally nothing substantive about spiritual realities, if they even exist.

I do agree, which is why I don't think finding reproductive qualities (if that's what one can call it) is important in this analogy.

In a family, the mother, father, and son are not co-equally the same,

Not in old times, but today? How are they not co-equal? Or, perhaps better asked, what would make them co-equal? I ask out of ignorance, and am not necessarily trying to argue in favor of certain position.

not co-equally one but in three persons,

I'd wish to repeat my question: "what does 'god in three persons mean?".

I don't know if I'm wrecking or making discussion possible here (forgive me if it's 'wrecking'), but what does 'god' mean in light of 'one god,' when there are three beings involved? Like some sort of committee of intricate nature?

[37818]

The trinity is the name of the explanation of there being Persons who are the One immutable God who has revealed Himself through temporal acts.

Examples of temporal acts of God:

Creation: Genesis 1:1.
Personhood Genesis 1:26; Genesis 3:22; Genesis 11:5-7; Isaiah 6:8.
God walking in the garden, Genesis 3:8.
God revealing Himself to Moses, Exodus 3:2, 14.
God the Father speaks to the man Jesus, Mark 1:11.

[Individualist]

I agree with ApologiaPhoenix that the family analogy fails, specifically because, unlike the Trinity, a family is not co-equally the same, all being one while being separate "people", as it were.

Don't Christians consider God the Father and Jesus Christ to be separate people?

[37818]

Don't Christians consider God the Father and Jesus Christ to be separate people?

Yes, separate persons. But they are both the One indivisible God. Now Jesus Christ was both the man and God incarnate, being the Son of God.

[WiredPixel]

I came up with a good analogy for the Trinity: Think of God as having multiple personality disorder. In the sense that each trinity member, is the same thing as God in essence, but each have their own egos, or minds and personalities.