The Trinity Explained by Non-Trinitarians

[liamconnor]

In the Apologetics section I would expect a lot of sarcasm and snide remarks for this question. Here, I hope to find more sincere responses.

Question: What do you think the Trinity means to Trinitarians?

Please note: this is not "What do you think about the Trinity?"

Thus If your response is sarcastic or demeaning, you are essentially saying, "Trinitarians scorn the trinity" which is obviously ridiculous, as they don't.

So, if you were to explain the Trinity to someone else without overt condemnation, how might you?

[2timothy316]

My agenda was to flush out some false concepts of the Trinity which are frequently set up to attack it (i.e., strawmen).

If there were not so many 'concepts' and other trinitarians calling other trinitarians 'concepts' false and there was a clear idea of the trinity there wouldn't be a problem. When I talk to a trinitarian I never know which type of trinitarian I'm going to get. The fact that some feel the need to 'flush out some false concepts' means that someone (more than likely another trinitarian) is giving what another trinitarian calls false. But who determines which trinitarian is right? When I pose one trinitarian's belives to another, what I mostly hear is, 'that's the basic idea, but there is some stuff that is not right'. When I get 2 trinitarians to agree fully to what exactly what the trinity is, its like I want to shout 'BINGO', like I won something.

No one can keep up with them all, so I gave up trying.

[onewithhim]

In the Apologetics section I would expect a lot of sarcasm and snide remarks for this question. Here, I hope to find more sincere responses.

Question: What do you think the Trinity means to Trinitarians?

Please note: this is not "What do you think about the Trinity?"

Thus If your response is sarcastic or demeaning, you are essentially saying, "Trinitarians scorn the trinity" which is obviously ridiculous, as they don't.

So, if you were to explain the Trinity to someone else without overt condemnation, how might you?

I have had enough discussions with Trinitarians to know that they believe that (1)the Father is God, (2)the Son is God, and (3)the Holy Spirit is God. Every Trinitarian I have spoken to has said that he or she agrees with that assessment. They seem to believe that all are equal to each other.

[marco]

So, if you were to explain the Trinity to someone else without overt condemnation, how might you?

First of all it is seen as a mystery, something above reason but revealed by God. Christ and the Holy Spirit are interpreted to be of heaven; there can only be one God, so somehow they are incorporated into a single God in a mysterious way. One would suppose that they are coeval with the Father, but the Nicene Creed tells us that Jesus was the "only begotten son of the Father." It does not dwell on what we should understand by "begotten." The Holy Spirit miraculously "proceeds" from the Father and the son, which caused a schism in the Church - the filioque controversy.

The Earthly Christ is the incarnation of God, the word made flesh. If we design a hypostatic union of divine and human nature in Jesus, we are back on track. In any event, if we find the Trinity notion absurd, that is no problem, since humans are meant to find mysteries too hard to understand.

[Monta]

[quote="Divine Insight"]


"In short, in the Church I grew up in people simply didn't worry about trying to have to explain how God "works". The idea was to just have faith that "With God all things are possible".

**I like this idea when people do not understand something, let it be and don't make up stories. There's many things in life we do not understand and to pretend otherwise we make fools of ourselves. I hardly think tent or mud-cave dwellers understood the nature God yet it is the idea of God which advanced man from walking on four legs.


"There was also the huge problem of Jesus saying to the Father God, "Forgive them for they know not what they do".

**The definition of Trinity bellow should answer that.

The Trinity existing in one person, in the Lord, is the divine essence which is called the Father, the divine human which is called the Son, and the divine proceeding which is called the Holy Spirit; thus there is Trinity in unity.

[onewithhim]

So, if you were to explain the Trinity to someone else without overt condemnation, how might you?

First of all it is seen as a mystery, something above reason but revealed by God. Christ and the Holy Spirit are interpreted to be of heaven; there can only be one God, so somehow they are incorporated into a single God in a mysterious way. One would suppose that they are coeval with the Father, but the Nicene Creed tells us that Jesus was the "only begotten son of the Father." It does not dwell on what we should understand by "begotten." The Holy Spirit miraculously "proceeds" from the Father and the son, which caused a schism in the Church - the filioque controversy.

The Earthly Christ is the incarnation of God, the word made flesh. If we design a hypostatic union of divine and human nature in Jesus, we are back on track. In any event, if we find the Trinity notion absurd, that is no problem, since humans are meant to find mysteries too hard to understand.

I do not accept that premise that "humans are meant to find mysteries too hard to understand." God certainly wanted humans to understand Him and be in close association with Him. He would not give them information (that He has, within the Bible) that was confusing. His truths are basically simple, and it is man himself that has complicated things. He has distorted the very word of God that was meant to inform us. It is vital that we search out the most accurate translation, and that can be done. Most translations are woefully failing in this accuracy that we desire. Most humans will also reject solid reasoning by someone who sets forth compelling arguments for certain translations. Who even bothers to check out the excellent work of Jason BeDuhn...."Truth in Translation"? They don't because he brings down commonly accepted translation of scripture and explains what the correct translations are, rocking the boat of people who desire to remain comfortable.

BeDuhn and others can help us to understand that when Scriptures are read as they were originally written, we can understand that God's information for us is easy to understand. The operative word is "understand." He wants us to do so.

[onewithhim]

In the Apologetics section I would expect a lot of sarcasm and snide remarks for this question. Here, I hope to find more sincere responses.

Question: What do you think the Trinity means to Trinitarians?

Please note: this is not "What do you think about the Trinity?"

Thus If your response is sarcastic or demeaning, you are essentially saying, "Trinitarians scorn the trinity" which is obviously ridiculous, as they don't.

So, if you were to explain the Trinity to someone else without overt condemnation, how might you?

Do you have any comment on my post #12?

[marco]

I do not accept that premise that "humans are meant to find mysteries too hard to understand." God certainly wanted humans to understand Him and be in close association with Him. .........
BeDuhn and others can help us to understand.

Well we can assume that God wanted people to understand what he was saying; presumably that would be no problem for him. We can also see that there would be concepts which most people would find too hard to follow – try some tensor calculus! - and God would “reveal� these truths. It is not for us to know how Jesus raised himself both from the dead and later into the sky. We take these feats to be miracles, which we don’t have the mechanics to work out.

When people like your religious expert BeDuhn question established lines in the books they publish they initiate controversy. They may be right in places, wrong in others, since even a doctorate in religious studies does not confer infallibility. We can listen politely but we mustn’t let ourselves be seduced by technicalities, else we are simply placing trust not in God, but in flesh and blood.

[onewithhim]

I do not accept that premise that "humans are meant to find mysteries too hard to understand." God certainly wanted humans to understand Him and be in close association with Him. .........
BeDuhn and others can help us to understand.

Well we can assume that God wanted people to understand what he was saying; presumably that would be no problem for him. We can also see that there would be concepts which most people would find too hard to follow – try some tensor calculus! - and God would “reveal� these truths. It is not for us to know how Jesus raised himself both from the dead and later into the sky. We take these feats to be miracles, which we don’t have the mechanics to work out.

When people like your religious expert BeDuhn question established lines in the books they publish they initiate controversy. They may be right in places, wrong in others, since even a doctorate in religious studies does not confer infallibility. We can listen politely but we mustn’t let ourselves be seduced by technicalities, else we are simply placing trust not in God, but in flesh and blood.

Jesus could not have "raised himself" back to life. The Scriptures say that it was the Father, Jehovah, who raised him up.

"God resurrected him by releasing him from the pangs of death." (Acts 2:24)

"God resurrected this Jesus, and of this we are all witnesses." (Acts 2:32)

There are dozens more verses like these.


Yet you concentrate on ONE ambiguous verse that mentions that Jesus would raise himself up! Could there possibly be another understanding of that verse, other than your own? How about the fact that Jesus was so obedient and loyal regarding his Father that that obedience and loyalty was counted to him for grace and mercy and resulted in his deserving of a resurrection?

If we think along those lines, we INCLUDE all the other scriptures that plainly say that the Father resurrected him, rather than having to ignore them all.


(It is interesting to see that you would just go with the flow regarding the versions of Scripture that we have that contradict themselves over and over, rather than checking out scholars like BeDuhn who say things that will actually resolve those contradictions.)

[Pipiripi]

The word Trinity is derived from the Latin word trinitas, which came from the Platonic test trias meaning three. Those it IS Philosophical in origin.
The word trinity was introduced by Tertullian (160-225 AD) who was a pagan turned Catholic theologian and one of the early Church fathers who wrote in the early third century to devine the teachings concerning the Godhead. His conclusion was that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit wete one substance, but not one in person.He also did not see the Son as a being coeternal with the Father.
There are many unanswered questions about the trinity doctrine and the most obvious is where I'm the Bible is explained. Scholars throughout history have acknowledged that it is not found in the Bible. Many will respond that the trinity doctrine isfond in 1John 5:7. But the italicized part of this verse that says, "For there are three that bear record in heaven the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost: and this three are one," does not exist inthe earliest manuscript!

[onewithhim]

The word Trinity is derived from the Latin word trinitas, which came from the Platonic test trias meaning three. Those it IS Philosophical in origin.
The word trinity was introduced by Tertullian (160-225 AD) who was a pagan turned Catholic theologian and one of the early Church fathers who wrote in the early third century to devine the teachings concerning the Godhead. His conclusion was that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit wete one substance, but not one in person.He also did not see the Son as a being coeternal with the Father.
There are many unanswered questions about the trinity doctrine and the most obvious is where I'm the Bible is explained. Scholars throughout history have acknowledged that it is not found in the Bible. Many will respond that the trinity doctrine isfond in 1John 5:7. But the italicized part of this verse that says, "For there are three that bear record in heaven the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost: and this three are one," does not exist inthe earliest manuscript!

That is what I have learned as well, and thanks for your input. It is refreshing to have knowledgeable responses to the thread topic.