Understanding the Trinity

[Kurieuo]

Videos here: http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 31#p216331 and I'd recommend the first as most important.

[jenna]

ok, you say that there is one being split into three parts. explain to me how does 1/3 of one being separate itself from itself, change form and composition, die, and then resurrect itself and then rejoin itself? and, in Genesis does God talk to Himself? and again, if this is not what you mean by 3-in-1, then you believe in polytheism.

No, God is not split into parts. This is one of those fundamental things that is hard to grasp but when you get it makes you say, "Oh, duh. Obviously." I will say you are right that those people who view the Trinity as three parts that make up one God, do, in fact, believe in polytheism. And we have a LOT of polytheists in the church today. But that's where they need to be corrected. The Bible doesn't teach polytheism. It teaches monotheism. There is only one God. There are no parts of that God. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not "parts" of Him, as if the Father + the Son + the Spirit make up God. Even without understanding the underlying philosophy, one way you can see that is that Trinitarians (rightly) claim that each Person of the Godhead is fully God and also say that all are equal to one another. Now if there is only one God, and if all are fully God, then if God were three parts (one part Father, one part Son, one part Holy Spirit), then none of the three Persons would be fully God. They would only be the part of God that they are. Imagine a cake. A cake is made up of eggs, wheat, sugar, milk, things like that. None of those ingredients are fully the cake. They are only their part of the cake, and the cake itself is dependent on (contingent upon) those parts to actually exist. If God were made up of three Persons, then none of those persons would be God Himself, and God Himself would be dependent on (contingent upon) those parts to actually exist.

So, again, no. God is not one being split into three parts. Trinitarians are monotheists, not polytheists.

you say that none of the ingredients are fully cake, but the cake itself is contigent on all the ingredients to actually be a cake. please try again, because that is a horrible analogy. or, unless i read it correctly, God cannot be God unless all three parts are there. so again my as yet unanswered question stands. How can God split Himself into three parts, completely change form, make Himself mortal, allow Himself to die, forsake Himself, then resurrect Himself, and return to sit at the right hand of Himself? And again, does God talk to Himself?

PLEASE ANSWER THESE POINTS. ty

No, the analogy is good. You have not read me correctly.

Let's use a simpler analogy than the cake. Take a peanut butter and jelly sandwich (you're welcome, Rick). You have three basic ingredients: peanut butter, jelly, and bread.

Are any of those three items a pb&j sandwich? No.
Are any two of the three a pb&j sandwich? No.
Are all three of those, not "assembled," a pb&j sandwich (i.e., a jar of peanut butter, a jar of jelly, and slices of bread)? No.

In order to have a pb&j sandwich, you have to have all three and put together in the correct way. When you have met those conditions, you have a pb&j sandwich. So the sandwich is three parts, put together in a certain way. That means the existence of the sandwich is dependent on at least FIVE things:

1. the peanut butter
2. the jelly
3. the bread
4. all put together
5. in the correct way

Lose any one of those five and you no longer have a sandwich.

All that clear?

Now, compare that to the Trinity. A common, but WRONG, way to view the Trinity is to imagine each Person as part of the Trinity. So, on this view, the Father might be like the peanut butter, the Son like the jelly, and the Holy Spirit like the bread. All three, taken together and properly related to each other, "make up" the Trinity. But on this view, if you lose any of the five parts (the Father, the Son, the Spirit, all taken together, and related in a certain fashion), then you no longer have the Trinity.

This view of the Trinity is, again, WRONG. It makes God into a contingent being. It further entails atheism (for the same reason I argue your polytheism entails atheism).

The thing you need to grasp--or accept before you grasp it, at least--is that the Trinity denies that there are ANY parts of God. So your statement, "unless i read it correctly, God cannot be God unless all three parts are there" is NOT correct. You have NOT read us correctly. You have it exactly backwards. For if there were any parts, then God would not exist. Again, this is the very essence of the doctrine of the Trinity: no parts in God. No parts of any kind whatsoever. If your God has parts, not only is it not the God of the Trinity, then it is not the God the church has always said existed. If your God has any parts of any kind, then He is not the creator of the world, and thus is not the God of Genesis 1. In other words, if your God has any parts of any kind, He is not the biblical God. Perhaps you have the god of another religion, but if your God has parts, He is not the God of Christianity or Judaism.

From there, your other questions are very simple:

How can God split Himself into three parts

He does not. God has no parts, nor could He split Himself into parts if He wanted to.

completely change form

God does not change form, not could He if He wanted to. He is immutable (changeless).

make Himself mortal, allow Himself to die

God does not make Himself mortal, nor could He if He wanted to. He is eternal.

forsake Himself

God does not forsake Himself, nor could He, any more than you can forsake yourself. Moreover, that would require a change in God, which does cannot happen.

then resurrect Himself

He doesn't.

and return to sit at the right hand of Himself?

He doesn't.

And again, does God talk to Himself?

He doesn't.

None of these questions have anything to do with the Trinity. They have to do with the Incarnation. And the short answer to those is that the divine nature does none of those things. The man Jesus Christ does in by His human nature, not His divine nature. And this is going to turn out to be a much more serious problem for you, because when you get into this, you'll find that your theology requires you deny that Jesus is God.

you say that God did not make Himself mortal, even if He wanted to. So you are saying Christ was not mortal, nor did He die?
If God could not forsake Himself, then who was Christ speaking to when He said "My God, why have you forsaken Me"?

I would ask who resurrected Christ, but since you said He did not die, the question is moot.

so where is Christ now, if not at the right hand of Himself, since you say God is not separate?

Who is God speaking to in Genesis, before the creation?

[Jac3510]

none of this has explained anything, especially on what exactly the trinity is to you. you say God is 3-in-1, but have yet to explain in any clear manner exactly how this is. i have heard nothing but analogies, like apples, oranges, and now a pbj sandwich? really? how am i supposed to understand something that you claim is fundamental as the trinity, when you (or anyone here) have not explained it in a manner able to be understood?

they really should make a smiley for pulling your hair out, which would be appropriate, for my side and probably your side as well.

Have you watched the videos K provided? They do what you're asking.

Beyond that, I was answering your question. It is extremely disingenuous for you to ask questions, me provide answers to them, and then complain about other issues. You asked how on Trinitarian ideas that God could separate Himself into parts. I told you how that was not the case. The PB&J analogy is to show why that's not the case. Then, rather than responding to that point and acknowledging your error in asking how Trinitarians could ask God to break up into thirds--instead of that--you complain about not being told what the Trinity actually is.

And if that weren't enough, I have been telling you what it is. So has everyone else. The Trinity is really two statements:

1. There is ONLY one God, and this God is not composed of any parts. (That's what I've been addressing with you recently)
2. There are three Persons, NOT THREE BEINGS, who subsist as this one God.

That's all the Trinity is.

[Jac3510]

you say that God did not make Himself mortal, even if He wanted to. So you are saying Christ was not mortal, nor did He die?

No, I'm not.

If God could not forsake Himself, then who was Christ speaking to when He said "My God, why have you forsaken Me"?

Jesus was speaking to the Father.

I would ask who resurrected Christ, but since you said He did not die, the question is moot.

I said no such thing.

so where is Christ now, if not at the right hand of Himself, since you say God is not separate?

Christ is at the right hand of God.

Who is God speaking to in Genesis, before the creation?

I am.

You're theology necessarily requires the denial of both the divinity and the humanity of Christ.

[jenna]

none of this has explained anything, especially on what exactly the trinity is to you. you say God is 3-in-1, but have yet to explain in any clear manner exactly how this is. i have heard nothing but analogies, like apples, oranges, and now a pbj sandwich? really? how am i supposed to understand something that you claim is fundamental as the trinity, when you (or anyone here) have not explained it in a manner able to be understood?

they really should make a smiley for pulling your hair out, which would be appropriate, for my side and probably your side as well.

Have you watched the videos K provided? They do what you're asking.

Beyond that, I was answering your question. It is extremely disingenuous for you to ask questions, me provide answers to them, and then complain about other issues. You asked how on Trinitarian ideas that God could separate Himself into parts. I told you how that was not the case. The PB&J analogy is to show why that's not the case. Then, rather than responding to that point and acknowledging your error in asking how Trinitarians could ask God to break up into thirds--instead of that--you complain about not being told what the Trinity actually is.

And if that weren't enough, I have been telling you what it is. So has everyone else. The Trinity is really two statements:

1. There is ONLY one God, and this God is not composed of any parts. (That's what I've been addressing with you recently)
2. There are three Persons, NOT THREE BEINGS, who subsist as this one God.

That's all the Trinity is.

ok, first off, I have not been complaining about anything. I have asked questions, such as the difference being beings and persons, and like the questions above. and whether you consider three persons or three beings, my questions still stand. and have yet to be explained.

[Kurieuo]

If one is trying to visualise God, than they will be sorely disappointed. If we can't picture a much simpler object like a tesseract, which is a 4-dimensional cube, then you're not going to visualise God who is transcendent.

To lower God down to our level in a manner we can visualise, such will always take away from God's nature. This includes ideas that turn God into "parts" like say a cake where each person is one part of God, or ideas which attempt to materialise God in this or that form (which means God isn't transcendent).

What is important, isn't so much what we can visualise, but what we see in Christ's own teachings and what Scripture teaches. And here we see that Scripture teaches that each person in the Trinity (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) are co-eternal and co-exist possessing full divinity (not part) and transcend our world.

Logically, there is nothing wrong with this. Conceptually, you'll never visualise God.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0G2S5ziDcO0

[jenna]

ok, one more question i must ask. am i understanding this correctly? One being (God) three persons?

[Jac3510]

none of this has explained anything, especially on what exactly the trinity is to you. you say God is 3-in-1, but have yet to explain in any clear manner exactly how this is. i have heard nothing but analogies, like apples, oranges, and now a pbj sandwich? really? how am i supposed to understand something that you claim is fundamental as the trinity, when you (or anyone here) have not explained it in a manner able to be understood?

they really should make a smiley for pulling your hair out, which would be appropriate, for my side and probably your side as well.

Have you watched the videos K provided? They do what you're asking.

Beyond that, I was answering your question. It is extremely disingenuous for you to ask questions, me provide answers to them, and then complain about other issues. You asked how on Trinitarian ideas that God could separate Himself into parts. I told you how that was not the case. The PB&J analogy is to show why that's not the case. Then, rather than responding to that point and acknowledging your error in asking how Trinitarians could ask God to break up into thirds--instead of that--you complain about not being told what the Trinity actually is.

And if that weren't enough, I have been telling you what it is. So has everyone else. The Trinity is really two statements:

1. There is ONLY one God, and this God is not composed of any parts. (That's what I've been addressing with you recently)
2. There are three Persons, NOT THREE BEINGS, who subsist as this one God.

That's all the Trinity is.

ok, first off, I have not been complaining about anything. I have asked questions, such as the difference being beings and persons, and like the questions above. and whether you consider three persons or three beings, my questions still stand. and have yet to be explained.

I answered all of your questions, precisely and concisely. If you don't understand something, feel free to look at the answer I provided and ask a follow up.

[jenna]

If one is trying to visualise God, than they will be sorely disappointed. If we can't picture a much simpler object like a tesseract, which is a 4-dimensional cube, then you're not going to visualise God who is transcendent.

To lower God down to our level in a manner we can visualise, such will always take away from God's nature. This includes ideas that turn God into "parts" like say a cake where each person is one part of God, or ideas which attempt to materialise God in this or that form (which means God isn't transcendent).

What is important, isn't so much what we can visualise, but what we see in Christ's own teachings and what Scripture teaches. And here we see that Scripture teaches that each person in the Trinity (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) are co-eternal and co-exist possessing full divinity (not part) and transcend our world.

Logically, there is nothing wrong with this. Conceptually, you'll never visualise God.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0G2S5ziDcO0

actually, no. please read Romans 1:20. For the invisible things OF HIM from the creation of the world are CLEARLY SEEN, BEING UNDERSTOOD by the things that are made, even His eternal power AND GODHEAD, so that they are without excuse.

[jenna]

none of this has explained anything, especially on what exactly the trinity is to you. you say God is 3-in-1, but have yet to explain in any clear manner exactly how this is. i have heard nothing but analogies, like apples, oranges, and now a pbj sandwich? really? how am i supposed to understand something that you claim is fundamental as the trinity, when you (or anyone here) have not explained it in a manner able to be understood?

they really should make a smiley for pulling your hair out, which would be appropriate, for my side and probably your side as well.

Have you watched the videos K provided? They do what you're asking.

Beyond that, I was answering your question. It is extremely disingenuous for you to ask questions, me provide answers to them, and then complain about other issues. You asked how on Trinitarian ideas that God could separate Himself into parts. I told you how that was not the case. The PB&J analogy is to show why that's not the case. Then, rather than responding to that point and acknowledging your error in asking how Trinitarians could ask God to break up into thirds--instead of that--you complain about not being told what the Trinity actually is.

And if that weren't enough, I have been telling you what it is. So has everyone else. The Trinity is really two statements:

1. There is ONLY one God, and this God is not composed of any parts. (That's what I've been addressing with you recently)
2. There are three Persons, NOT THREE BEINGS, who subsist as this one God.

That's all the Trinity is.

ok, first off, I have not been complaining about anything. I have asked questions, such as the difference being beings and persons, and like the questions above. and whether you consider three persons or three beings, my questions still stand. and have yet to be explained.

I answered all of your questions, precisely and concisely. If you don't understand something, feel free to look at the answer I provided and ask a follow up.

i just did.

[Jac3510]

ok, one more question i must ask. am i understanding this correctly? One being (God) three persons?

Depending on how you mean "one," but that's much closer than you were originally. The proper statement is that in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons. You need to be very cautious about referring to God as "one being," because "one" is usually taken to mean something like "a singular." So construed, your statement would say that God is one, singular being who is three persons. But that's incorrect. God is not a being at all. If you want to describe Him at that level, then rather than say He is a being, we speak of His nature as Being In Itself, or in Latin jargon, ipsum esse subsistens. He is the very act of Being.

Look at it this way: you say, "I exist." I could just as well say, "Jenna exists." In both of these sentences "I" and "Jenna" refer to the same thing: you. But "exist" doesn't refer to you. It refers to a fact about you: your existence. So you are not identical with your existence. Equally, you are not identical with your humanity. You are a human that exists. So we have three things there: Jenna, her human nature, and her existence. Thus, you are a being, and the kind of being that you are is a human.

But none of that applies to God. He is identical with His own nature. He doesn't have a nature like you do. He just is His nature: God. You aren't humanity itself. But God, on the other hand, most certainly is divinity itself. And second, He just is His own existence. You aren't your own existence. But God, on the other hand, most certainly is. In fact, God's nature is the very act of existence. That means that God's existence is not something predicated or asserted about or added to Him like yours is. Your human nature had to be brought into existence in order to become a real human individual. So existence, in a sense, had to be added to your nature, so to speak, to make you real in the real world. But God isn't like that. His nature just is existence. Just like your nature just is all the things we mean by humanity (a rational person with a body, a member of homo sapien, etc.), God's nature is existence. And He just is that nature. So God is not a being. He just is Being. And within that unity of existence there are three Persons, all of whom are identical with that nature/existence. That is, everything I've just said about "God" is true of all three Persons. All three Persons just are the very act of existence. None of the Persons are a Being. They are all ipsum esse subsistens.

[Kurieuo]

ok, one more question i must ask. am i understanding this correctly? One being (God) three persons?

Yes, that is essentially what's believed, however one might conceptualise such (which I think is to bring God down to human level) would likely break down and/or end up incorrect leading to one heresy or another.

CS Lewis said in Mere Christianity (which I'd fully recommend as a base reading to any Christian):

• The human level is a simple and rather empty level. On the human level one person is one being, and any two persons are two separate beings - just as, in two dimensions (say on a flat sheet of paper) one square is one figure, and any two squares are two separate figures. On the Divine level you still find personalities; but up there you find them combined in new ways which we, who do not live on that level, cannot imagine. In God's dimension, so to speak, you find a being who is three Persons while remaining one Being, just as a cube is six squares while remaining one cube. Of course we cannot fully conceive a Being like that: just as, if we were so made that we perceived only two dimensions in space we could never properly imagine a cube. But we can get a sort of faint notion of it. And when we do, we are then, for the first time in our lives, getting some positive idea, however faint, of something super-personal - something more than a person. It is something we could never have guessed, and yet, once we have been told, one almost feels one ought to have been able to guess it because it fits in so well with all the things we know already.

[jenna]

ok, one more question i must ask. am i understanding this correctly? One being (God) three persons?

Depending on how you mean "one," but that's much closer than you were originally. The proper statement is that in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons. You need to be very cautious about referring to God as "one being," because "one" is usually taken to mean something like "a singular." So construed, your statement would say that God is one, singular being who is three persons. But that's incorrect. God is not a being at all. If you want to describe Him at that level, then rather than say He is a being, we speak of His nature as Being In Itself, or in Latin jargon, ipsum esse subsistens. He is the very act of Being.

Look at it this way: you say, "I exist." I could just as well say, "Jenna exists." In both of these sentences "I" and "Jenna" refer to the same thing: you. But "exist" doesn't refer to you. It refers to a fact about you: your existence. So you are not identical with your existence. Equally, you are not identical with your humanity. You are a human that exists. So we have three things there: Jenna, her human nature, and her existence. Thus, you are a being, and the kind of being that you are is a human.

But none of that applies to God. He is identical with His own nature. He doesn't have a nature like you do. He just is His nature: God. You aren't humanity itself. But God, on the other hand, most certainly is divinity itself. And second, He just is His own existence. You aren't your own existence. But God, on the other hand, most certainly is. In fact, God's nature is the very act of existence. That means that God's existence is not something predicated or asserted about or added to Him like yours is. Your human nature had to be brought into existence in order to become a real human individual. So existence, in a sense, had to be added to your nature, so to speak, to make you real in the real world. But God isn't like that. His nature just is existence. Just like your nature just is all the things we mean by humanity (a rational person with a body, a member of homo sapien, etc.), God's nature is existence. And He just is that nature. So God is not a being. He just is Being. And within that unity of existence there are three Persons, all of whom are identical with that nature/existence. That is, everything I've just said about "God" is true of all three Persons. All three Persons just are the very act of existence. None of the Persons are a Being. They are all ipsum esse subsistens.

this actually makes sense in a way. BUT. in order to be born as human, Christ would have had to change His very nature (from Being to human being) in order to be able to die.

[Kurieuo]

this actually makes sense in a way. BUT. in order to be born as human, Christ would have had to change His very nature (from Being to human being) in order to be able to die.

Scripture says Jesus took upon Himself the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men. (Philippians 2:7) His very nature (divine) didn't change.

[jenna]

this actually makes sense in a way. BUT. in order to be born as human, Christ would have had to change His very nature (from Being to human being) in order to be able to die.

Scripture says Jesus took upon Himself the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men. (Philippians 2:7) His very nature (divine) didn't change.

He came to earth to die for us. if His nature did not change (divine, holy, immortal) then how could He have done this? yes i realize this is asking even more questions, sorry.