Using the term 'persons' for the Trinity

[MikeWatson1]

I don't know about y'all, but I find the term 'persons' makes me think of seperate beings.. and then I go to Polytheism when thinking about the  Trinity.  In my mind mind.. that's 3 seperate beings.

But then ... when I using the term 'essences' or 'manifestations' as 3 manifestations/essences of the one being.. God, there is a problem.

When Jesus talks to the Father, that's an 'essence talking to an essence'..  or 'manifestation talking to a manifestation' so it falls short of really capturing the trinity.  Then persons, sort of becomes best term to use.

When persons -- is more along the lines of 'persona' rather than 'seperate being'.. I could live with that I guess.

I know it goes beyond human reasoning.  But would be interested to know your thoughts on this.

 

 

[TheGloryLand]

My Father, My Son, My Self, are one. Great is this Mystery…

[BrotherTony]

16 hours ago, MikeWatson1 said:

I don't know about y'all, but I find the term 'persons' makes me think of seperate beings.. and then I go to Polytheism when thinking about the  Trinity.  In my mind mind.. that's 3 seperate beings.

But then ... when I using the term 'essences' or 'manifestations' as 3 manifestations/essences of the one being.. God, there is a problem.

When Jesus talks to the Father, that's an 'essence talking to an essence'..  or 'manifestation talking to a manifestation' so it falls short of really capturing the trinity.  Then persons, sort of becomes best term to use.

When persons -- is more along the lines of 'persona' rather than 'seperate being'.. I could live with that I guess.

I know it goes beyond human reasoning.  But would be interested to know your thoughts on this.

 

 

I've never had a problem with accepting the fact that there are three distinct persona's in the Godhead. Remember, our ways aren't God's ways, and our thoughts and understandings are not his. We have a finite mind limited in our understanding of God. Yet, we know that three different entities are mentioned. The Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit. It starts in Genesis 1. It's these are mentioned in unison in several place throughout Scripture. The Trinity is one of the hardest things in the Bible to explain and to get folks to understand at times. We were always having it explained this way...The Trinity is like an egg...there is the shell, the white, and the yoke...three distinctive, separate parts, but all three still a part of the egg. 

[MikeWatson1]

22 hours ago, BrotherTony said:

I've never had a problem with accepting the fact that there are three distinct persona's in the Godhead. Remember, our ways aren't God's ways, and our thoughts and understandings are not his. We have a finite mind limited in our understanding of God. Yet, we know that three different entities are mentioned. The Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit. It starts in Genesis 1. It's these are mentioned in unison in several place throughout Scripture. The Trinity is one of the hardest things in the Bible to explain and to get folks to understand at times. We were always having it explained this way...The Trinity is like an egg...there is the shell, the white, and the yoke...three distinctive, separate parts, but all three still a part of the egg. 

Yeah that's a pretty good analogy.  I also like the light prism.  When light is put through one, it is many shades of three base colours.

[Rando]

On 11/12/2022 at 1:04 PM, MikeWatson1 said:

I don't know about y'all, but I find the term 'persons' makes me think of seperate beings.. and then I go to Polytheism when thinking about the  Trinity.  In my mind mind.. that's 3 seperate beings.

But then ... when I using the term 'essences' or 'manifestations' as 3 manifestations/essences of the one being.. God, there is a problem.

When Jesus talks to the Father, that's an 'essence talking to an essence'..  or 'manifestation talking to a manifestation' so it falls short of really capturing the trinity.  Then persons, sort of becomes best term to use.

When persons -- is more along the lines of 'persona' rather than 'seperate being'.. I could live with that I guess.

I know it goes beyond human reasoning.  But would be interested to know your thoughts on this.

 

 

I have  passion for the Theology of the Trinity:  It is one of my passions to explain it faithfully without analogy and make sense of it to the Christian believer.

I am of the opinion that analogies are not helpful: The reason for that, is that there is nothing in the created Universe which we can observe and identify with, which IS a "trinity". 

I don't think there are "pictures" of it. 

That is o.k....we can still make sense of the teaching.

I believe that the best definition for the Trinity is that God is three "persons" in one "essence".

What that means, is that we have to identify, define an explain what it means to be a "person" and an "essence".

I would define a "person" roughly as an independent mind, source of consciousness and will.

Within the Godhead, we have seen the Father, the Son and the Spirit act as independent minds with purpose and consciousness, and an awareness of their own self-identity which is also distinct from the other members of the Godhead.  This is sufficient to mean that they are distinct "persons".

An "Essence" is slightly more difficult.

An "Essence" is possibly best explained as opposed to what philosophers call a "property thing".....

A "Property thing"... is a composite composed of parts:

By way of example: An automobile is a composite of individual parts....

Each part has an identity separate from the whole.

The identity of the parts also precedes the whole.

Thus, we have alternators, tires, wires, pistons et al:  Therefore, an automobile is a "property-thing"...a composite where the parts precede the whole.  They are inter-changeable.  Any Ferrari can be restored with parts not original to that exact Ferrari, and as long as the original is extant, then, a few inter-changed parts makes it the same Ferrari....fully restored.   Generally, this would include all non-living beings of all sorts, to include a table, chair, or even a hard-wood floor.  Those individual composite parts precede the whole.

But "Essences" are different.  With an "essence" the whole precedes the part:

Generally, living beings are NOT composites..They are not only MORE than a sum of their parts....but their individual parts do not have identity outside of the Whole.

The whole comes first.

I have a head.

My head has no identity, no purpose, no meaning except the person the "essence" that is already me is in place:

Thus, my arms, legs, or any parts have no purpose or identity except my who person is in place.

This is not different in that sense as simply a dog or a rat actually..........But the distinction is established.

The whole of an "Essence" is prior to its parts......and therefore has an identity which proceeds the parts.

 

God, then is a singular "essence"....comprising  three distinct "persons"....none of which are composites of parts.....

This is not a fun analogy:

But, there is no visible created thing which can adequately serve as an analogy for the Godhead.  The Godhead is unique.  Thus, we must make sense of the doctrine.  We must explain it in terms which make sense.

What we cannot do is believe a self-contradictory set of statements, and call it "mystery".

Self-contradictory statements aren't "mystery"........They are non-sense.

I only propose a definition which can make sense of the doctrine, preserving the person-hood. distinction, and identity of all persons within the Godhead while understand that they comprise a unique whole.

This is the challenge of Biblical Christianity.  And we must define that doctrine.

 

.

 

 

 

[BrotherTony]

@Rando, it would be impossible to "define that doctrine." And why is it a "must?" We are human beings with a limited understanding of the trinity. Our finite minds will never, while in the living, human body, be able to adequately understand and explain the trinity. We're not infinite beings, nor are we all knowing. God alone is this. The challenge of Biblical Christianity is to strive to become more like Christ, and to be spreading the gospel. It is not mandatory, nor is it necessary to fully understand the doctrine of the trinity to live the Christian life. It IS, however, a very interesting subject and worthy of investigation. 

[Rando]

7 minutes ago, BrotherTony said:

Quote

7 minutes ago, BrotherTony said:

 

 

 

Quote

 

Quote

t would be impossible to "define that doctrine."

..

 

 

[Rando]

11 minutes ago, BrotherTony said:

it would be impossible to "define that doctrine.

I can explain it....

It is the doctrine that the Godhead is composed of three distinct persons in one essence.

And why is it a "must?"

Because it is one of the most distinctive doctrines of the Christian Church for the last 2,000 years.

I understand that YOU can't speak knowledgeably on the topic....

But, fortunately, others can, and they have done so for countless hundreds of years.

14 minutes ago, BrotherTony said:

Our finite minds will never, while in the living, human body, be able to adequately understand and explain the trinity.

Says whom?

Did God say this?

Did God simultaneously give to you a doctrine you can neither DEFINE or EXPLAIN........(that's what you just said actually read your own posts.)

And then insist you "believe" this un-defined doctrine????

My explanation and definition is quite open to critique....But it IS a definition of what it is, and it is an explanation of how it is understanded and grasped.  You provide nothing.

Quote

 

 We're not infinite beings,

 

God is not an "infinite being".

"Infinity" is a mathematical concept which, while valuable, in a way.....is understood by the brightest of minds to be a self-defeating concept.  It contains self-defeating absurdities..

We've understood that for nearly

a hundred years. 

Hilbert's paradox of the Grand Hotel - Wikipedia

25 minutes ago, BrotherTony said:

It is not mandatory, nor is it necessary to fully understand the doctrine of the trinity to live the Christian life.

You cannot teach nor believe a doctrine you don't understand and can't elucidate.

If you don't understand the doctrine you can't teach it.

if you can't elucidate the doctrine, you can't believe it.

 

27 minutes ago, BrotherTony said:

It IS, however, a very interesting subject and worthy of investigation. 

Brilliant minds have for thousands of years taught the doctrine.

I'm making up nothing out of whole cloth....

I have studied FAR more brilliant minds than mine own, and my definition is a distillation of the teachings that more brilliant minds than mind have taught for literally THOUSANDS of years.

God did not provide us an inexplicaple, un-intelligible, un-explanable doctrine that we must "believe" as some weird test of faith:

As though claiming to adhere to something you cannot define and cannot elucidate is a test of faith:

It is not a test of "Faith"...it's a test of stupidity.

The Doctrine of the Trinity is either explanable, testable, sensible, and can be defined, or it is no doctrine at all.  You are welcome to critique my explanation and nuance it, find fault with it, explain it in better terms, and take issue with my presentation of it.

It's certainly not perfect.

But, what I do NOT do: Is claim that there's a doctrine which can't be defined, can't be explained........but Christian's have to believe it, because some dude said there's a word you have to love called "trinity" and (don't ask me what it means because even I don't know)  ?????????

There is a word for that:

It's called "Gaslighting" people.

 

 

 

 

[BrotherTony]

2 hours ago, Rando said:

I can explain it....

It is the doctrine that the Godhead is composed of three distinct persons in one essence.

That is usually explained in most doctrines classes. UGH!

And why is it a "must?"

Because it is one of the most distinctive doctrines of the Christian Church for the last 2,000 years.

I understand that YOU can't speak knowledgeably on the topic....

What?  A slam on my intelligence? Rudeness will get you nowhere with me.

2 hours ago, Rando said:

But, fortunately, others can, and they have done so for countless hundreds of years.

If they have, then why the snarkiness in your response? And why pose the question here? 

Says whom?

Did God say this?

Did God simultaneously give to you a doctrine you can neither DEFINE or EXPLAIN........(that's what you just said actually read your own posts.)

And then insist you "believe" this un-defined doctrine????

My explanation and definition is quite open to critique....But it IS a definition of what it is, and it is an explanation of how it is understanded and grasped.  You provide nothing.

God is not an "infinite being".

"Infinity" is a mathematical concept which, while valuable, in a way.....is understood by the brightest of minds to be a self-defeating concept.  It contains self-defeating absurdities..

We've understood that for nearly

a hundred years. 

Hilbert's paradox of the Grand Hotel - Wikipedia

You cannot teach nor believe a doctrine you don't understand and can't elucidate.

If you don't understand the doctrine you can't teach it.

if you can't elucidate the doctrine, you can't believe it.

 

Brilliant minds have for thousands of years taught the doctrine.

I'm making up nothing out of whole cloth....

I have studied FAR more brilliant minds than mine own, and my definition is a distillation of the teachings that more brilliant minds than mind have taught for literally THOUSANDS of years.

God did not provide us an inexplicaple, un-intelligible, un-explanable doctrine that we must "believe" as some weird test of faith:

As though claiming to adhere to something you cannot define and cannot elucidate is a test of faith:

It is not a test of "Faith"...it's a test of stupidity.

The Doctrine of the Trinity is either explanable, testable, sensible, and can be defined, or it is no doctrine at all.  You are welcome to critique my explanation and nuance it, find fault with it, explain it in better terms, and take issue with my presentation of it.

It's certainly not perfect.

But, what I do NOT do: Is claim that there's a doctrine which can't be defined, can't be explained........but Christian's have to believe it, because some dude said there's a word you have to love called "trinity" and (don't ask me what it means because even I don't know)  ?????????

There is a word for that:

It's called "Gaslighting" people.

 

 

 

 

It would be helpful if you posted your replies to each individual question just that way. I'm not going to attempt to follow your jumbled thought pattern here. I made an attempt at this and I've left what i wrote. Feel free to reply in insult if you wish. You'll receive no further reply from me. 

[Disciple.Luke]

I don't care for the term "persons" when describing the trinity. The main reason is because of how it comes across to critics of true Christianity. I remember watching a debate from the late 80s between Jimmy Swaggart and Muslim apologist Ahmad Deedat. It was hard to watch listening to Deedats attacks on the bible because he equated the term 'persons" with polytheism. Also the Jehovah's witnesses are rather skillful at casting doubts when they talk to someone who considered themselves Christian but no almost nothing about the Bible. 

[Jerry]

The Trinity is three distinct persons in the Godhead. It is not three personalities (like God had multiple personalities), or three different modes of God that He takes on at different times - the Father is not the Son or the Holy Spirit, the Son is not the Father or the Holy Spirit, and the Spirit of God is not the Father or the Son - they are distinct from each other. Each member of the Trinity is separate and distinct, yet one God - that is what the Bible teaches, even if others cannot fathom it or explain it. We need to accept what God says by faith.