For Trinitarians: Three seaprate persons as one or just one person who is all three?

[2timothy316]

IMHO, Father, Son and Holy Spirit have human characteristics: emotions, will, etc. We are created in the image of God. Perhaps saying three persons in one God helps people to understand better. I have no idea. All I know is that there is ONE GOD, and He is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Jesus is the Father.

The Encyclopedia Britannica says: Trinity, in Christian doctrine, the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three persons in one Godhead.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Trinity-Christianity

So which is it? Is Jesus the Father and HS as one person? Or is it the more accepted dogma, three persons are one?

[2timothy316]

What did your comment (that I have been responding to) have to do with the OP question?

Let get your tangent onto a new thread.
viewtopic.php?p=1112893#p1112893

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to 2timothy316 in post #11]

If your comment applied to the OP, then my response to your comment also applies to the OP, does it not?

As to your new thread, JW addressed that in this thread as well:

There are probably as many flavors of "trinitarians" as there are denominations. I dont think most are being evasive, its just how do you answer questions on a "mystery? I personally tend to focus on specifics such as being equal in rank, power, knowledge and age. In any case, in my opinion, they are not a united body so nobody cares if beliefs are contradictory.

The question of Jesus being both the Father and the Son when examined closely , is I think, only possible via neither being an individual person. Traditionally most trinitarians I have spoken to, acknowledge three persons, so believing they are one PERSON is a particularly difficult position to hold. I doubt if you'll get anyone that holds such a belief to explain it anyway, but you're welcome to try.

Peace again to you.

[Eloi]

From my point of view, when people believe and speak of a god that is composed of several people or of a certain substance shared between several people, or similar things that prevent the correct identification of One who is recognized as God, then they are teaching and preaching an unknowable god, like the god of the agnostics, who can be anything, as many things as they could be, but that no one can know... nor even if it is a real thing.

The Bible makes known the identity of the true God: his name is Jehovah, and he is the Father of Jesus Christ, not a compound, not a substance, not an essence, not a family, not a title, not a family last name, not a corporation, not a set... GOD is a single person: Jehovah, the Majesty of the whole Universe.

Heb. 1:3b after [Jesus Christ] had made a purification for our sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.

[historia]

So which is it? Is Jesus the Father and HS as one person? Or is it the more accepted dogma, three persons are one?

The doctrine of the Trinity is properly the belief that there is one God in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

MissKate's view, if I understand it correctly, is perhaps best described as Sabellianism or Oneness theology. This is generally not considered to be a Trinitarian view of God, and probably the reason why MissKate has repeatedly said she doesn't use the word "trinity" to describe her view. So I'm not sure what the confusion is here.

It seems that those that tout the trinity doctrine only care when Jehovah's Witnesses 'get it wrong'. Yet, here is a trinity believer that has got it wrong by most other trinity believer standards and they are fine with it apparently with their lack presence in this thread.

Most of the participants here have a life outside this board. It would be foolish to jump to conclusions about what other participants think simply because they have yet to respond to a thread.

The message seems to be, believe as you wish about the trinity, you don't have to be right, just as long as you believe in some sort of mysterious trinity.

I think we can safely discard this straw man argument.

[Eloi]

(...) The doctrine of the Trinity is properly the belief that there is one God in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
(...)

So, do you think that this version of trinity (your version) is the version the rest of trinitarians have?

If your answer is NO, then do you think that they should abandon their version and accept yours as true, to really have the notion of God, or a real relationship with Him?

How important is it for you that a believer has the correct version of the trinity?

[historia]

So, do you think that this version of trinity (your version) is the version the rest of trinitarians have?

This isn't "my version" of the Trinity, this is simply the doctrine of the Trinity, as historically understood by the orthodox churches.

Those who hold alternative theological views to this should not be called "trinitarians."

[Eloi]

So, do you think that this version of trinity (your version) is the version the rest of trinitarians have?

This isn't "my version" of the Trinity, this is simply the doctrine of the Trinity, as historically understood by the orthodox churches.

Those who hold alternative theological views to this should not be called "trinitarians."

Well, I could say that your version is the historical ortodox view of the trinity.

What about other historical views of the trinity? There are thousands of called Christian churches in this moment ... and I am sure there are a lot of diferent views of the trinity among them that have been around for centuries.

Actually, any historical view of that doctrine is historical since certain point in the history but never in the past of that moment, so there were not historical view of that belief before that point. I can asure that none of Jesus followers heard anything about the doctrine.

It's interesting how reluctant you are to accept other views on that doctrine to be called "trinity" as well. Those who defend these other points of view consider that this is also the name of their belief, even though it differs from the oldest one.

For example, it was said before(and even in official books of the Catholic Church) that the doctrine was a mystery... Now there are many who say that they and some special humans were given to understand that mystery, so they compare it with an egg, the three states of water, or a supposed composition of the human being...

So now there are those who say that it is a substance divided into three, or three people who share one mind, or one person who plays three different roles, etc. Do you think they should pay royalties to the church or respond in a religious or legal trial for using a doctrine name that does not describe the orthodox belief?

[historia]

What about other historical views of the trinity? There are thousands of called Christian churches in this moment ... and I am sure there are a lot of diferent views of the trinity among them that have been around for centuries.

Such as?

[Eloi]

What about other historical views of the trinity? There are thousands of called Christian churches in this moment ... and I am sure there are a lot of diferent views of the trinity among them that have been around for centuries.

Such as?

I was mentioning some point of views, others than the "mistery theory" in my last post.

[historia]

What about other historical views of the trinity? There are thousands of called Christian churches in this moment ... and I am sure there are a lot of diferent views of the trinity among them that have been around for centuries.

Such as?

I was mentioning some point of views, others than the "mistery theory" in my last post.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

You asked me about "other historical views of the trinity." What historical views are you referring to?