How is the eternal Trinity NOT a pantheon..

[Elijah John]

It is orthodox Christian doctrine that the Trinity has always existed (even before Creation) as one God in three distinct persons. Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

All well and good. And fair enough. But how can you have it both ways, one God in three Persons? Three Persons, fine. One God with no distinctions, fine. But how can it be one and three, or three in one?

Please try to avoid "it's a Divine mystery" type answers. That would seem a bit of a cop-out.

How is a Trinity of Divine Persons, NOT a trinity of Gods? Pagans also have familial pantheons, with parent gods and offspring. How is the Christian Trinity any different? How is the Christian Trinity, not a pantheon of Gods?

[marco]

How is a Trinity of Divine Persons, NOT a trinity of Gods? Pagans also have familial pantheons, with parent gods and offspring. How is the Christian Trinity any different? How is the Christian Trinity, not a pantheon of Gods?

When we attempt to assign separate functions to each person of the Trinity, we are introducing three beings. Perhaps the idea came from the triumvirate, a rule by three men; the three men made up ONE government.


One might ask, in the short period of time when God the Son was deseased, did this affect the Trinity, temporarily? Was godhead reduced to two and one dead person?
We shall know in heaven, no doubt.

[shnarkle]

The "god in three persons" seems to be the more popular articulation of the doctrine, however, I have also noticed that the creed puts it this way: "one in being with the father", and this makes sense to me.

The Latin word used is "consubstantialis" (in the accusative in the creed) and the phrase consubstantial with the Father was used. To simplify matters for the simple flock the new translation was "one in being with" and in your discourse you have shown a problem in moving away from what was originally written. Your observation that being is of course a noun as well as a present participle takes you down a road that has more to do with that English word than with the original claim that Jesus and the Father were of one substance. An analysis of "being" is not an analysis of the Trinity.

A number of churches have recently replaced "being" with "substance", but my argument is still just as valid, if not moreso. It is Christ who is the substance of God, or God substantively manifest. Whereas God is the source or origin of this substance.

[shnarkle]

A number of churches have recently replaced "being" with "substance", but my argument is still just as valid, if not moreso. It is Christ who is the substance of God, or God substantively manifest. Whereas God is the source or origin of this substance.

Regardless of which articulation one prefers, the argument is the same. The "stance" is the dwelling place. Christ is where God dwells, and while the dwelling may contain God, the dwelling is not God. However, it is the only place where God may be found.

[marco]

A number of churches have recently replaced "being" with "substance", but my argument is still just as valid, if not more so. It is Christ who is the substance of God, or God substantively manifest. Whereas God is the source or origin of this substance.

Your argument appeared to involve the grammatical consideration of "being" as noun and verb. I can see that one might consider that Christ and God are both in existence, so share that unremarkable property. I have no idea what your argument might be when you use the word "substance". The concept has caused a lot of debate.

[William]

@

Elijah John: How is a Trinity of Divine Persons, NOT a trinity of Gods? Pagans also have familial pantheons, with parent gods and offspring. How is the Christian Trinity any different? How is the Christian Trinity, not a pantheon of Gods?

William: As I understand things.

The Father Granted Jesus the right to create the Metaphysical and Physical Universes.

The Son became "Creator God" of the universes he created.

The Holy Ghost is "The Spirit of Christ" effectively the means by which Jesus creates and recreates his creation through.

Everything within the MU and the PU is the ripple effect of The Sons creativity, with the addition of The Fathers intersession.

[shnarkle]

A number of churches have recently replaced "being" with "substance", but my argument is still just as valid, if not more so. It is Christ who is the substance of God, or God substantively manifest. Whereas God is the source or origin of this substance.

Your argument appeared to involve the grammatical consideration of "being" as noun and verb. I can see that one might consider that Christ and God are both in existence, so share that unremarkable property. I have no idea what your argument might be when you use the word "substance". The concept has caused a lot of debate.

I'm not suggesting that Christ and God are in existence. I'm pointing out that these texts indicate that Christ is eternal existence. It is Christ in, with, and through whom everything exists, including one's conception of God which is nothing more than an idea. Paul points out that God is the origin of all that exists while Christ is the means by which everything exists. Christ is contingent between transcendence and the objective world, Transcendence is the origin of existence and everything in existence. From this it logically follows that transcendence can't exist.

Everything exists because of existence or being, and to transcend everything that exists without transcending existence denies the meaning of the word, It makes no sense to suggest that things can be transcended without transcending their existence.

Therefore it is only in, with, and through existence that it is possible to see the origin of existence, which can't exist without redefining the meaning of the word. We have to begin somewhere, but we can't begin with the origin of existence which is eternal so the biblical authors point out that one must begin with "the word" which has no beginning. This should not be conflated with the origin which also has no beginning or end.

Put another way, there is only the word "God", and this word has no referent in the objective observable world. It's meaning is synonymous with transcendence. The word itself can't be transcendent though. It is immanently present which is the only way transcendence can be approached, and as this happens, the things of this world disappear like light into a black hole.

God is not a thing, or a "what". God is not anything that exists. So not only can there not be a pantheon, there can't be anything that can ever be identified as God. When the world of things is transcended, there is nothing left to identify with either.

[Overcomer]

The Bible does not present three separate gods. It presents one God who exists in three persons. They are ONE in essence and have always existed as such. That is why, whenever people attempt to say that the God of the Bible is no different than the three gods of Hinduism (Brahman, Vishnu and Shiva), it shows that they do not understand that the Christian God is one ontologically while the Hindu ones are not seen that way at all. If the Hindu deities were real, they would be three separate beings.

There is nothing in creation that we can liken this to (although people have tried using water/steam/ice, for example) which is probably why some people have so much trouble grasping the concept. We want to compare it to something to help us to understand it. While we were made in God's image and, therefore, have the ability to think, reason, make choices, love others, etc., we are different in the manner of our being or in our essence although we are tripartite beings ourselves (body, mind and spirit).

William Lane Craig likes to use the phrase "consciousness" to describe the Triune God, saying that there is one God who exists with three consciousnesses. But again, it is a difficult concept for us to wrap our minds around.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 17 by Overcomer]

OK, three Persons vs three Gods. But that seems like a distinction without a difference. Or, what is the difference?

I think it was Shnarkle who likened persons to "masks" derived from "persona". But that suggests modes of the One in three different manifestations. But that understanding is dismissed as the heresy of "modalism" by orthodoxy. Seems orthodoxy wants to have it both ways. One God, and not three, but still, three Divine Persons. Confounds God-given Reason.

So, other than a numerical difference, how is the Trinity not simply a pantheon, but a pantheon of fewer Gods?

Is it the moral character of the Persons of the Trinity? Some pagan gods are naughty, but Trinitarian Persons are not.

Is it that they all three have basically the same sphere of influence, governing the same domain unlike a pagan pantheon where they seem to have separate spheres and domains?

Is it that the Trinity is asexual, no Goddess involved in the creation of offspring, in this case the Son?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 18 by Elijah John]

Does this help?

[ttruscott]

[Replying to post 17 by Overcomer]

OK, three Persons vs three Gods. But that seems like a distinction without a difference. Or, what is the difference?

One answer, post #5:
[Replying to post 5 by ttruscott]