The Trinity in a Nutshell

[Zeta Metroid]

Interesting, so his Wisdom and Power are hypostatic...and the two main attributes of God are omniscience and omnipotence.
Hm, there's some big statement to be found in that somewhere!

[junglemandan]

The problem with this explanation of the Trinity is that each of the descriptions of the three Persons have a different essence (lamp, light, heat). That is an inaccurate explanation of the God of the Bible.

[jpholding]

The problem with this explanation of the Trinity is that each of the descriptions of the three Persons have a different essence (lamp, light, heat). That is an inaccurate explanation of the God of the Bible.

That was fairly incoherent and misguided as an objection. The purpose of the analogy here was to define the nature of the relationship, not to describe their properties. No analogy could do that correctly. (especially since "essence" is such a vague term).

[junglemandan]

The article begins by asking the question, “What is the best way to explain the Trinity.” My response was hardly incoherent given that fact, and the definition of “essence” is not vague if you own a dictionary.

If the purpose of the article was to explain the relationships between the members of the Trinity then your argument is all the more absurd. When we speak of the Trinity we are speaking of three persons. So, why is an analogy needed to discuss relationships? Although, the three persons are God, why would the relationships they have with one another be any different than any other relationship between other persons, aside from the fact that theirs are perfect, eternal, etc.?

The difficulty with the doctrine of the Trinity is not in explaining how each person relates to the other two but in how the three persons are one God. That is what causes so many to stumble, and that is what most people attempt to address when one says he is trying “to explain the Trinity.” When the only two “bad sides” of this analogy are given as being that a lamp, light, and heat are “not persons” and that they are “not eternal” then I think it is only fair to mention that the difference in essence is also another major problem with this explanation.

[jpholding]

The article begins by asking the question, “What is the best way to explain the Trinity.” My response was hardly incoherent given that fact, and the definition of “essence” is not vague if you own a dictionary.

Oh really? Dictionary.com lists eight definitions for "essence" -- so it IS vague, unless you say which one you're using. Furthermore, even the most relevant defintion ("the basic, real, and invariable nature of a thing or its significant individual feature or features") has virtually no discernible semantic content and can be read as referring to anything from personality to physical properties.

And yes -- your question was incoherent in context because it was irrelevant to the issue being discussed.

If the purpose of the article was to explain the relationships between the members of the Trinity then your argument is all the more absurd. When we speak of the Trinity we are speaking of three persons. So, why is an analogy needed to discuss relationships?

Um, because most people haven't a clue how it actually works, and end up using illustrations that actually represent some heretical view. Not been out much then?

Although, the three persons are God, why would the relationships they have with one another be any different than any other relationship between other persons, aside from the fact that theirs are perfect, eternal, etc.?

Because they are, as revealed to us. Unless you have a neighbor who is a hypostasis of someone else.

The difficulty with the doctrine of the Trinity is not in explaining how each person relates to the other two but in how the three persons are one God.

That's not difficult at all. The real problem is that "God" has been morphed into a personal name, when in fact theos was an abstract noun. Ancient deities frequently had hypostatic natures; even Plato's logos falls in that category. The difficulty is not that the doctrine is difficult, but that modern people are ignorant.

and that they are “not eternal” then I think it is only fair to mention that the difference in essence is also another major problem with this explanation.

How interesting that you think that. Unfortunately, while it is a curious insight into your personal preferences, it doesn't alter the nature of the specific issue being addressed.

[Sparko]

Light itself has "dual" properties: it is both a wave and a particle, yet each are fully "light." - one nature revealed in two distinct properties.

I always found that interesting.

[Chappy]

That's not difficult at all. The real problem is that "God" has been morphed into a personal name, when in fact theos was an abstract noun

Greetings jpholding,
I assume your refering to the use of theos in the Greek Scriptures, do you have any references supporting your statement.
Cheers
Chappy

[jpholding]

Greetings jpholding,
I assume your refering to the use of theos in the Greek Scriptures, do you have any references supporting your statement.
Cheers
Chappy

NT Wright. I forget which book but it is probably Jesus and the Victory of God. And anyway, just check uses of theos for yourself.

[Chappy]

Greetings JPH
I took your advice and checked out the uses of theos in the Greek Scriptures and apart from a few instances they are all singular personal pronouns.
I do have a small theological library which includes a book by Murray Harris call “Jesus as God” and his conclusions appear to be similar to mine.
I don’t have the book referenced by you unfortunately.
Cheers,
Chappy

[jpholding]

I took your advice and checked out the uses of theos in the Greek Scriptures and apart from a few instances they are all singular personal pronouns.

And you determined this how?

[Chappy]

What I’m trying to say is “Theos” in the Greek New Testament seems to almost always be used in reference to a single individual, namely the Father i.e. the Father is God and God is the Father. Theos is a “he” not some abstract quality or essence which I assume is your understanding in referring to Theos as an Abstract Noun.
Doesn’t Theos already have an Abstract Noun form, theotes? As used in Colossians 2:9?
Cheers
Chappy

[jpholding]

What I’m trying to say is “Theos” in the Greek New Testament seems to almost always be used in reference to a single individual, namely the Father i.e. the Father is God and God is the Father.

That may be so, but by what you report, it is context that tells us what that reference is and makes the abstract recognizable as a person.

Theos is a “he” not some abstract quality or essence which I assume is your understanding in referring to Theos as an Abstract Noun.

By itself, yes, that is what it is -- if it has no context. That is what Wright was saying.

Doesn’t Theos already have an Abstract Noun form, theotes? As used in Colossians 2:9?

I don't see that that would be a special "abstract" version of theos, but feel free to inform me better.

[Chappy]

Hi JPH
Thank you for sharing your understanding of “Theos” in the Christian Greek Scriptures with me.
I do not agree with you that it is an abstract noun, but I can understand, as a Trinitarian, why you believe as you do.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but essentially you believe “Theos” refers to the essence or substance of God and depending on the context can be applied to either the Father, Son or the Holy Spirit. Very similar to Dr James Whites, “Three Who’s and One What” concept in his book, The Forgotten Trinity.
I am not here to debate or try to convert anyone on this board, I am only here to listen, learn and hopefully understand beliefs that differ from my own ( At this point in time). If you have any evidence or references from main stream Scholars, Grammarians etc that support your view I would be very eager to consider them. In the meantime I wish you all the best and thankyou once again for your time and sharing your novel interpretation of Theos in the Koine Greek of the Bible.
Cheers
Chappy

[jpholding]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but essentially you believe “Theos” refers to the essence or substance of God and depending on the context can be applied to either the Father, Son or the Holy Spirit.

If by "essence" you mean definition, that would be correct.

[sylvius]

BY THREE - THE TRINITY IN A NUTSHELL
By James Patrick Holding

The Trinity may be the hardest idea in Christianity for some people, but it is easier to understand once we have some facts in hand.
A good question to start is, What is the best analogy to explain the Trinity? There isn't one that is perfect. But the best is like this:

• Father = a lamp, star, or other light source
• Son (Jesus) = the light from the lamp
• Holy Spirit = the heat from the lamp

The plus side of this analogy is that:
[LIST]

Obadiah - Chapter 1

v.18

And the house of Jacob shall be fire and the house of Joseph a flame, and the house of JPH shall become stubble, and they shall ignite them and consume them, and the house of Esau shall have no survivors, for the Lord has spoken.