Questions about the Trinity.

Akrasia

I can never really get my head around the claims surrounding the 'Holy Trinity'.

It just seems to be completely impossible to even concieve in a way that is internally consistent.

I have never heard a debate where a religious advocate was held to explain just what are the properties of the 'holy trinity'. If the point is ever raised, it is swiftly ignored or handwaved away with a vacuous response that doesn't answer anything.

All of the traditional proofs for gods existance (ontological, epistemological etc) are designed to support the idea of a single creative force that governs nature and dictates morality etc

One of the 'proofs' is that god is 'necessary' but this concept of a 'necessary god' is completely out of step with the idea of a of a Trinity which is completely superfluous and seems a little bit out of step with a single creator entity.

In plain English, Can someone please explain to me what 'The Holy Spirit' does that couldn't be done by just God as a single entity? Did God need help with the administration of his creation? Was he lonely or bored and need someone to talk to?


If there has to be a first cause, was that 'God' or 'The holy spirit' or 'The Son' or were all 3 the first cause at the same time?

If the first cause was 'God' and the holy spirit and the son came later, how did God re-produce? Did he just split his 'energy' or 'essence' or whatever he's made of into 3 parts?
Are the 3 parts equal? or is one part of God more powerful than the others?

The Nicene Creed says that Jesus was 'eternally begotten of the Father' and 'begotten not made' which implies that Jesus wasn't always in existence like God was, but that god reproduced himself.

Given that God is supposed to exist 'outside of time' then if God 'begets' his son, that means god had to there first before he can 'beget' himself, so does this mean that God is 'outside of time' but the holy spirit and Jesus are temporal?

If the 'holy spirit' and 'Jesus' are all reproductions of God, do they have an independent 'mind' or 'will' to 'God'

If the 3 different parts of god have an independent will, what would happen if there was a disagreement?



We have in the bible, Jesus prays to god, and he has 'doubts' about his fathers plans just prior to the crucifixion (although he later accepts them)
Does this mean that the trinity could have independent opinions on matters amongst themselves? or was jesus' individuality revoked when he left his earthly form and now they are just one single consciousness

If they are all one single consciousness and they are all the same, begotten and eternal and of the same 'godness', then what is it that makes them seperate, why bother having a trinity at all?

JimiTime

As a professing believer myself, I don't like the whole Trinity thing myself. There is no denying that there is a complex unity between the Father The Son and The Holy Spirit, but I'm really not sure about what I would refer to as ambiguous certainty relating to the nature of the trinity. I don't take the Jehovahs Witness view on it, but It does seem that many folk kind of bully the term into people. 'You don't believe the trinity, oh then you are not a Christian' etc. Like I said, there is a Oneness, there is no doubt, but I don't think we understand it enough to be making the pronouncments we do. Christ prayed to his Father, and asked him to held the apostles to be One, just as they were one etc.

Good topic for discussion IMO. I'm never satisfied by the answers myself. By the end of the discussion, I'm usually still thinking, yes, they are one, but what this Oneness is, is a discussion in itself

georgieporgy

The Catechism of the catholic church is a useful resource for all questions pertaining to Christianity.
Here's the link for the section that deals with the Trinity
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p2.htm

Akrasia

georgieporgy wrote: »

The Catechism of the catholic church is a useful resource for all questions pertaining to Christianity.
Here's the link for the section that deals with the Trinity
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p2.htm

Thanks for the link. I read through it but I still don't understand. Does anyone have a clear explanation in plain english?

totus tuus

Pretty lengthy, but a good article on the Trinity!
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm

lmaopml

Akrasia wrote: »

Thanks for the link. I read through it but I still don't understand. Does anyone have a clear explanation in plain english?

I have often wondered the same thing myself, in my lack of understanding everything - it should just be A, B, and C, just like solving an equation - but alas, even what we call 'good' people are not just known as A, B, C. If only things were so simple, well things, people, would be really boring too - but they aren't they are mysterious, always elusive..

Nobody can 'describe' God for you satisfactorily - but at times you come close, everybody does, and can choose to ignore, or explore!...the point of that I think is that the narrative is an 'invitation' to 'learn' for yourself, don't be a lazy git - this is, and the Trinity is not a geographical map, it's a 'relationship', it's not a lay your bet down kind of thing, it's quite simply whether you considered to know him, and if you do, then take the first step, don't anticipate the last..

The first step is very painful however..and perhaps that's why people choose only to see the baptism in the Jordan, and how magnificent it was and not a little revealing with sleepy eyes. Even though it was possibly the most magnificent event in salvation history.

I think our understanding comes from Jesus himself and knowing him first, and knowing people too, and
to be fair you wouldn't be the first to not understand entirely the 'Trinity' as revealed or as something that is a concrete portrait of a 'being' as such with a long white beard etc. That's just a dim reflection, all art is. It's not about a painting, or another person however, or even understanding every single mystery ever, it's about - and always has been about how you react to Jesus Christ, and whether you saw him in another.

georgieporgy

Akrasia wrote: »

Thanks for the link. I read through it but I still don't understand. Does anyone have a clear explanation in plain english?

This might help. It's a 20 minute talk by Fulton Sheen. One example he uses is water. Water has one nature (H2O), yet it can exist in 3 different, separate states: liquid, steam and solid(ice).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSNNmIRbRtM

IRWolfie-

georgieporgy wrote: »

This might help. It's a 20 minute talk by Fulton Sheen. One example he uses is water. Water has one nature (H2O), yet it can exist in 3 different, separate states: liquid, steam and solid(ice).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSNNmIRbRtM

Water can not be liquid, steam and solid at the same time (to anticipate you, the triple point of water is not the answer you think it is), so I think this analogy would ultimately be fruitless (not interested in listening to a twenty minute youtube video on it unless there is some transcript).

lmaopml

IRWolfie- wrote: »

Water can not be liquid, steam and solid at the same time (to anticipate you, the triple point of water is not the answer you think it is), so I think this analogy would ultimately be fruitless (not interested in listening to a twenty minute youtube video on it unless there is some transcript).

It's an analogy - which you seem to have grasped - i.e. a way of describing something using commonly understood things...it's of the same substance, one substance, that is H20. Plain old water.

Or perhaps the shamrock as used by St. Patrick might begin to explain if not fully, this 'revelation'.

If you don't want to listen to the video, than that's your very own choice to make. That's life!

IRWolfie-

lmaopml wrote: »

It's an analogy

The problem is that the analogy seems to have little explanatory power. The same water can't be steam, liquid and solid at the same time. The Christian God (by definition) is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit at the same time. If they are in fact distinct, then that sounds a lot like polytheism.

Branch Meeting

georgieporgy

IRWolfie- wrote: »

The problem is that the analogy seems to have little explanatory power. The same water can't be steam, liquid and solid at the same time. The Christian God (by definition) is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit at the same time. If they are in fact distinct, then that sounds a lot like polytheism.

You have misunderstood the example.

You can have a glass of water, a block of ice, and a pot of steam arranged on a table side by side at the same time. Each will have the same nature, H2O, yet be quite distinct from the other. Three distinct objects with the same nature.
The OP had requested a simple explanation in plain english. The youtube link I supplied is not all about water. It's about the Trinity. Three distinct persons sharing the one nature. (God nature)

Our own nature as you know is human nature.

Fanny Cradock

IRWolfie- wrote: »

The problem is that the analogy seems to have little explanatory power. The same water can't be steam, liquid and solid at the same time. The Christian God (by definition) is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit at the same time. If they are in fact distinct, then that sounds a lot like polytheism.

It's called modalism. While the analogy is well intended it's also heretical.

Peregrinus

Akrasia wrote: »

Thanks for the link. I read through it but I still don't understand. Does anyone have a clear explanation in plain english?

If you get "a clear explanation in plain English", it will be an oversimplification. Or a heresy. Or both.

The Trinity is a mystery, which means that trying to understand it on an intellectual level will make your head hurt. (If your head's not hurting, you're not doing it right.)

It's a Christian notion - the Jews think it's just bizarre - and it's closely related to the Christian belief that Jesus of Nazareth is the Incarnation of God.

Here’s the problem:

1. Jesus is believed to be God incarnate.

2. But Jesus is recorded in the Gospels as referring to God in the third person (“Your Father in heaven does such-and-such” rather than “I do such –and-such”), and as addressing God in the second person (“Father, if it be your will . . .”). Is he talking to himself? Is he deliberately trying to mislead? What exactly is the relationship between “Jesus” and “God”?

3. Tied up with this problem is reflection on what it means to think of God as a person. Part of what makes us people is the relationships we have with others – you can’t be a complete person if you don’t have relationships, and we know that a person who is completely isolated for any prolonged period of time becomes fractured, broken, less than whole. God couldn’t be a perfect person without having relationships. So God must have relationships, but with whom? With us? Yes, but we’re his creation. He created us because he was God, and therefore he was God prior to creating us. And even if we say that, prior to us, God had relationships with the angels, say, well, they’re created beings too, so that doesn’t really answer the problem.

The answer is that God has relationships within Himself. Or rather, God is relationships within himself. “God is Love”, says 1 Jn 4, and love is relationship; it requires a lover and a beloved, and God is both of these things.

God is, therefore, not just Father, Son and Spirit, but the eternal communion (another relationship) or mutual indwelling (ditto) between Father, Son and Spirit. As to how we get Father, Son and Spirit – a trinity, rather than a duality or something with four or more person, there are scriptural reasons for that, most clearly – though “clearly” is perhaps not really the best word here – set out in the Gospel of John.

Joe1919

Tripartite divisions were traditionally common, even before Christianity. I am thinking in terms of the mind/body/spirit division attributed to man and the three virtues prudence/temperance/fortitude associated with these divisions.

Its also worth noting that 'goodness' was also seen in three ways. There was firstly divine providence that was attributed to the cosmic God, who is author off all nature. Secondarily, there was a perfect moral goodness that was attributed to the 'sage' or 'exemplar', which to some extent was goodness incarnated. Thirdly, there is the goodness that exists in each human will, the God within us all so to speak.