Another attempt at describing the Trinity


AnthonyB
 Share

Recommended Posts

I have been thinking of alternative ways of describing the Trinity, or at least getting some of the concepts across.

Firstly idea is the rainbow, it is made of one essence or substance "light". It has several expressions or witnesses of it self as different colours, which although they can be referred to individually there is no way to partition them because they are not seperate but form a continuum so that a distinct line could never be drawn where one colour begins and the next ends. Despite the fact that they are not divided they are still distinct colours within the one entity of rainbow.

The second illustration is from Sci-Fi, so those who are not into that genre the following will make little sense, I will also preference this section that is was designed to just give an alternative to the prevailing LDS perception of 1 person in 1 being with an example of another way of divising things without explicitly being applicable to the trinity. The Borg in Star Trek are an entity, with a single shared conciousness, they inhabit multiple bodies and each Borg unit knows that it say 1 of 7 or 2 of 7 but that it is also part of a coporate consiouness. In many ways the Borg are described as being 1 personal consiousness in multiple bodies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 110
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

A Catholic priest once explained it to me like a shamrock with the three leaflets being part of one leaf - I still don't think that explains God though because I believe they are individuals like us and there is no way we can be joined and be part of a greater whole with 2 other people. I am me. I'm a member of a family and we are all the one family but we are still seperate people and that to me is a better analogy of the relationship between Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even though I am a Sci-Fi fan and love Star Trek, I just can't see God as the Borg.:P

I like your first explanation, it explains a lot.

Thanks AnthonyB

If i remember correctly, Wasn't that lucifer's plan? we have no free-will but we do what we are told with no choice in the matter?

AnthonyB.

No matter how much you describe the trinity. It will never make sense to me, not out of ignorance, but because i know it is incorrect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stampede,

Given that historical statements made by LDS people are so often decontextualized and then held to ridicule, I would hope that you out of courtesy wouldn't return the favour.

LDS see a strong nexus between person and being, 1 person to 1 being. The borg example was not in anyway an attempt to describe God but to give examples of other ways of seeing the connection between person and being.

If you read the DrewM post on test proofs for the Trinity and then read my reply, you'll see I have no intention of persuading you from your beliefs, I'd agree that is something best left to the Holy Spirit. However I have seen a number of LDS misrepresent trinitarian belief and whether your belief it true or not, and even if it makes no sense to you, understanding properly someone elses view is a great to decrease the misunderstandings and even antagonizism that has existed between LDS and traditional Christians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been thinking of alternative ways of describing the Trinity, or at least getting some of the concepts across.

Firstly idea is the rainbow, it is made of one essence or substance "light". It has several expressions or witnesses of it self as different colours, which although they can be referred to individually there is no way to partition them because they are not seperate but form a continuum so that a distinct line could never be drawn where one colour begins and the next ends. Despite the fact that they are not divided they are still distinct colours within the one entity of rainbow.

I like this analogy..

The second illustration is from Sci-Fi, so those who are not into that genre the following will make little sense, I will also preference this section that is was designed to just give an alternative to the prevailing LDS perception of 1 person in 1 being with an example of another way of divising things without explicitly being applicable to the trinity. The Borg in Star Trek are an entity, with a single shared conciousness, they inhabit multiple bodies and each Borg unit knows that it say 1 of 7 or 2 of 7 but that it is also part of a coporate consiouness. In many ways the Borg are described as being 1 personal consiousness in multiple bodies.

Now this one made me giggle, having seen episodes and the film featuring The Borg...

God's new Plan...'You will be assimmilated!'

I'm only joking Anthony!:D I was brought up a Roman Catholic, and have had the Trinity explained to me a number of different ways, and it still baffles me...however I do find it difficult to think of God the Father and Jesus being seperate people..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been thinking of alternative ways of describing the Trinity, or at least getting some of the concepts across.

Firstly idea is the rainbow, it is made of one essence or substance "light". It has several expressions or witnesses of it self as different colours, which although they can be referred to individually there is no way to partition them because they are not seperate but form a continuum so that a distinct line could never be drawn where one colour begins and the next ends. Despite the fact that they are not divided they are still distinct colours within the one entity of rainbow.

The second illustration is from Sci-Fi, so those who are not into that genre the following will make little sense, I will also preference this section that is was designed to just give an alternative to the prevailing LDS perception of 1 person in 1 being with an example of another way of divising things without explicitly being applicable to the trinity. The Borg in Star Trek are an entity, with a single shared conciousness, they inhabit multiple bodies and each Borg unit knows that it say 1 of 7 or 2 of 7 but that it is also part of a coporate consiouness. In many ways the Borg are described as being 1 personal consiousness in multiple bodies.

Thank you for your efforts to help in understanding. The area I have difficulty understanding the Trinity; is if G-d can be divided into parts or not. Is the Son a differential part of G-d? Is the Son to be differentiated from the Father as a non equal part or as Jesus said less than his Father? Was Jesus correct in this doctrine or was he confused?

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The best book on the Trinity is entitled Understanding the Trinity by Alister E. McGrath. (Zondervan) The book helped me understand the Trinity idea. I am looking at my copy and it's only 154 pages.

the idea does not mean Jesus was a ventriloquist at his baptism. (Matthew 3:16-18) Withing God are three aware distinct centers of consciousness. They just are not in the idea seperate beings.

The body of Jesus is the only personage within God. But God is outside Jesus body. I compare it to a man putting his hand on a glove. Jesus is fully man and fully God. One illustation in my book say's Jesus allow's us to sample God. The illustration said like a moon rock allow's us to moon, but is not the whole moon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Traveler,

I have always seen the subordination of Jesus as being in terms of function not in terms of the intrinsic nature or worth of the persons. Phil 2:6 Whilst being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped.

As for parts I think the historic answer was distinction not division, which is part of the idea behind the image of the rainbow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So how come then we have the verse of scripture where Jesus says, "Nevertheless not my will but thine"? If they are both the same entity then there wouldn't be a 'my will' and 'thy will' would there?

We can paraphrase your quote and say "Nevertheless not Jesus' will but the Father's." We all agree that the Father exists and so does Jesus. Saying that the Father and Jesus have the same divine essence, does not negate their own diversity within that essence.

M.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's say the 2nd person of the Trinity could be seperated from the other pat's of God for a moment. Could he then if made a seperate being be called a person like any of us? God is supposed the be a person in the modern sense. Allister E. McGrath in my Understanding The Trinity book said that was appropriate definition God fit's.

Why wasn't the 2nd person of the Trinity in my scenario a person before? Jesus God part in my scenario kept everything he had when he was with the other part's of God. I am proposing no changes were made, but to let him exist by himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's say the 2nd person of the Trinity could be seperated from the other pat's of God for a moment. Could he then if made a seperate being be called a person like any of us? God is supposed the be a person in the modern sense. Allister E. McGrath in my Understanding The Trinity book said that was appropriate definition God fit's.

Why wasn't the 2nd person of the Trinity in my scenario a person before? Jesus God part in my scenario kept everything he had when he was with the other part's of God. I am proposing no changes were made, but to let him exist by himself.

For one thing God cannot be divided into parts, God is God. And the use of the word person to describe God, is for our benefit, since we are limited in our finite way in describing an infinite being. God has always been God, one in three, three in one. The three persons of the Godhead have always existed together as God. We may try to understand how these persons relate to each other and ourselves, but we cannot divide their essence or make them different than what they already are, to make it easier for us to define them.

M.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are going to go round and round in circles on this one because people who are firm in their Trintarian beliefs will not be persuaded that there are three distinct persons...

That you have wrong, because we already agree they are distinct from each other, we just don't define their distinctiveness as being equal to multiple Gods.

...and those of us who are sure they are seperate beings will never be convinced they can be three in one and one in three.

Yes, we are kind of going in circles but, just so I'm clear Willow, you believe that the Father, Son and HS are 3 Gods, is that correct?

M.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maureen-I did not ask my question to convince you. I struggle with understanding why the 2nd person of the Trinity is not like an individual person, but i am. The idea the person's arn't seperate doesn't help me very much.

Officially my Community of Christ/RLDS favor's the Trinitarian view of God. The Southern Baptist Convention on a handout on us misunderstood are belief statemen, so accused us wrongly of modalism. But my copy of Exploring The Faith which explained our belief statement content wise favor's the creedal Trinity. Not being a creedal church we have had Anti-Trinitaranism also which is how i feel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maureen-I did not ask my question to convince you. I struggle with understanding why the 2nd person of the Trinity is not like an individual person, but i am. The idea the person's arn't seperate doesn't help me very much.

Dale - Why do you think that Jesus is not individual? The 3 persons of the Godhead are separate from each other but since there is only ONE God, all we can do is try to understand to the best of our limited human ability and with a little help from the Holy Spirit himself, how three 3 persons can be the ONE and only God. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit do not make up 3 equal parts of God, they are God. They are individually God, so when we talk of Jesus, we are also talking about God. They are God collectively; God loves us, saves us and sanctifies us. I hope I'm understanding what you are trying to ask.

M. :mellow:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People from LDS seem to have a nexus that every individual person must be a seperate being. I think Lewis in "Mere Christianity" p 137-141 does a great job of getting the Trinitarians ideas across. It allows for a God who takes personalhood to the level beyond where we currently are. When the bible says God is love, trinitarian thought allows that attribute to have eternal expression. The one original being was forever 3 person and therefore capable of being in loving realtionship eternally.

If LDS find trinitarianism confusing than it is exactly how I find your views. If some of what I'm about to say is muddled I apologize but after several months reading your posts and articles about LDS you still stump me.

Jesus was eternal God, but I haven't seen anyone describe exactly how that occurred? Was He defied at the council when He laid out His plan or was he already God eternal?

The Holy Spirit is a personage of spirit, who is devine, how did that occurr?

The Father passed through stages of existence as we must to achieve Godhood, but it doesn't appear that either of the other persons in the Godhood did.

We must be in an eternal marriage to reach deification and there is a possibility that the Father is in an eternal marriage but where does that leave the other 2 persons in the godhood, neither of whom is married?

Jesus is our examplar of God, God revealed in flesh to us, yet it is the Father's possible path that we should follow not Jesus?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That you have wrong, because we already agree they are distinct from each other, we just don't define their distinctiveness as being equal to multiple Gods.

That is the part I'll never be able to get my head round. It is what I struggled with before I'd ever heard of the LDS church - then when I heard the LDS teaching on the subject it was light the cartoon light switch going on - Bingo! Yes of course!

Yes, we are kind of going in circles but, just so I'm clear Willow, you believe that the Father, Son and HS are 3 Gods, is that correct?

M.

Yes I believe they are 3 gods (note the small 'g'). It's unfortunate that the word God is used to describe Heavenly Father. He is the One. He is the father of us all, including being the father of Jesus Christ and of the Holy Ghost. They are both our brothers. They have however progressed further than we have along the path to perfection and divinity. Both are gods. That does not mean it is not necessary to have a physical body to continue progression. Jesus has passed through mortality, just as we all do, and has attained that body for himself. The Holy Ghost has not yet done so. I personally believe he has chosen not to do so in order to be able to help us in ways that only a spirit being can. I believe he will be the last to be born on earth. I also believe that Jesus married and is eternally sealed to that wife. As far as I am aware this isn't officially taught church doctrine but I find it unimaginable that he would deprive himself of something essential.

I think that answers some of your questions too AnthonyB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Willow, maureen is correct in saying 3 Gods. why do you use lower case g's when the church does not?

"When one speaks of God, it is generally the Father who is referred to; that is, Elohim. All mankind are his children. The personage known as Jehovah in Old Testament times, and who is usually identified in the Old Testament as LORD (in capital letters), is the Son, known as Jesus Christ, and who is also a God. ... The Holy Ghost is also a God and is variously called the Holy Spirit, the Spirit, the Spirit of God, etc." (lds bible dictionary)

that's how the lds church defines God. note the not small g's. since, in your mind, there is a difference between g's and G's, does this definition set forth by the church change your understanding of the Godhead?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, not at all. My understanding is still that they are three distinct and separate beings.

I used the small 'g' because in the English language the capital letter is more often than not used when referring to a name of a person. I would say God the Father when I am using the word to refer to his name. Then again some people would put 'His Name' whereas I don't because I feel it confuses the grammar.

Psalm 82 verse 6 says "Know ye not that ye are gods and children of the most High" It doesn't use a capital letter there because it is using the word 'gods' to describe 'godness' (for want of a better word) but it does use a capital letter for the word 'High' (where we all know that in any normal setting the adjective 'high' would not have a capital) because in this particular instance the word is being used to identify Heavenly Father. In other words it is a substitute name.

So I can say that Jesus, Heavenly Father and the Holy Ghost are gods but refer to them as God the Son, God the Father, God the Holy Ghost.

I don't know if I'm making sense. I know what I mean but it's difficult to put it into words. It doesn't change the fact that I believe they are 3 separate people and the LDS church teaches that they are 3 separate people. If we were having this discussion in German we wouldn't even be having this discussion because all nouns have capital letters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

before i finish reading your post, you are really taking that verse in psalm out of context. it is not referring to godness. it is referring to judges. it is not saying we are godly or gods in the literal sense. we can even look at it this way. you were making a difference between upper case G's and lower case g's. the scripture you quoted uses a lower case g. in the bible, that usually refers to false gods or false idols. if you don't believe me that it's referring to the judges of the time who thought of themselves as gods, ask the other people on this board who are more scholarly than i.

-----

willow, do you agree with me when i said that maureen was correct in saying 3 Gods(not the big G). the church says they are 3 Gods. The Father is A God, the Son is A God, and the Holy Spirit is A God(note the big G's). i just want to know if we agree on that small point. because if not, i can give you the church's definition of God. it says it there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share