The concept I've used to illustrate the Trinity, is not exactly easy around which to wrap your head, but I shall do my best (even if I'm not the all knowing poobah of Dr. Ransom)

If I held up an egg in my hand, and asked you to tell me what I had in my hand, you would say "an egg," nothing more. However, were you to look at it more closely, you would see that the egg was comprised up of multiple parts. You have the yolk, the shell, and the albumen (that's the white for those of you who aren't science majours). One egg, but three parts. If one part of the egg is taken away, it ceases to become an egg (unless you remove the pan and fry it in butter, which doesn't really relate to God, but sure does taste darn good when a little coarse ground pepper and parsely are tossed into the mix )

Another way to think of it is as a football team. When you say, "Who won the game last night," one doesn't start naming the players (and one certainly doesn't say "The Cleveland Browns" ) one says the name of the team who won. One team, multiple players. Each player is as individual as they come, but they share in their strategies, their aspirations, their wins and their losses.

One final way of thinking of it. Think of water, and it's three states: ice, liquid water, and steam. (Technically anything can become a liquid, or a gas, or a solid, including the air we breathe, but you more or less have to kill everything by dropping the temperature to absolute zero by doing so). You have three distinct forms, but they're all water. They never change. Whether you bake it, boil it, cook it in a stew, it's still going to contain one atom of Oxygen, forming a single bond with two hydrogen atoms, in a bent molecular formation, and weigh 18.016 AMU.

If you put the three of these illustrations together, you get a fuzzy definition of the trinity. Each character of the Godhead (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) are different, and individuals (like the baseball players, and the water molecules). However, each is deity (2H + O = H20. . . period). At the same time, they are one (even if they're different parts). Confused? Good, that's the way it's supposed to be. If God meant us to understand all of it, he would have allowed it. Go ahead, struggle with it, try to wrap your head around it all you like, but it's the same feeling that most of us get when we watch a rocket go off into space. We have no idea how it works, or how scientists could possibly pinpoint where that rocket will be in 14 years. The only thing we can do, is sit back and watch how beautiful the rocket launch is.

Christianity is the same way. Until we get to the other side of life, at the destination of our rocket ships, we will never understand certain things. But once the fog has cleared, and once our eyes are open, only then will we understand, and then we shall say, "Why, that is so simple! How did I not understand it down there?" But until then, we can only admire the beauty of the rocket, and assume that it exists because God said it exists, and God doesn't lie. End of story.

When I read Scripture I get the distinct impression that God the Father has a physical form. He resides in a place, Heaven. He sits on a Throne, a physical object, which would be kind of pointless for a disembodied being. He walked in Eden, indicating that He does have appendages which would necessitate being able to move about.

And I interpret these as metaphorical and analogical accommodation to human limitations. If you want to say God has a body, you contradict the idea that God is a spirit and is omnipresent. God invented matter--He is not Himself a material being.

one at least has to draw the distinct possiblity that God the Father has a physical form

Again, these are manifestations, not exhaustive accounts of what God looks like. Even Christ said, "No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God." (John 6:46). The conclusion is that these were manifestations of God's presence, since God is omnipresent. I'll leave arguing for the corporeality of God to the Mormons.

I didn't want to muddle things further by bringing in other arguments, but since you mentioned the Problem of Evil, the burden is on you to demonstrate that it is NOT of God. By your own definition, God created ALL, and if you believe Free Will is an illusion as Doc Ransom and other "Calvinists" (necessarily) posit, then there is no "wiggle room". YOU are saying that Evil is "of God".

I was a Calvinist before Dr. Ransom was, so careful there.

Calvinism has historically held that God is not the author of evil (which has no "existence" except as a perversion of goodness, anyway), but permits it as part of His perfect sovereign plan.

Calvinism doesn't deny that we have free will--unless you mean libertarian free will (which is nonsense anyway) or unless you are referring to the pre-enlightenment definition of freedom (i.e. the ability to do good and not evil).

Very True, but Ousia and Hypostasis had essentially the same meaning prior to their adoption by Christians, and some of the Greek philosophers in attempting to distinguish the terms even had reversed the definitions. And though "prosopon" was rejected at the time of Nicea, "person" eventually became the linguistic term that the Church rested it's definition of the Trinity upon. Under the circumstances, the definition of "Hypostasis" is as Fuzzy as "Person(a)". Thus I think attempting to revive the usage of those terms just muddies the concepts even further.

It was a rough translation of "hypostasis" into Latin, which is a much less precise language than Greek. I have carefully defined the terms as the Church Fathers did--it is you who are attempting to muddy the waters.

Monism is the belief that all is one, which Christians reject emphatically--God is other, holy. We have a trinity, yes, but it is a paradox where we have three persons in one God. We are monotheists because we maintain that God is one. We are not polytheists because we do not believe in three gods, but one. There are three distinct persons in the one God, but they are one God.

To state it propositionally:

The Father is God.
The Son is God.
The Spirit is God.
The Father is not the Son.
The Son is not the Spirit.
The Spirit is not the Father.
Nonetheless all are identified with each other.

Paradox? Yes. Contradiction? No.

Digs, while I appreciate your attempts, they all end in heresy. The team analogy is polytheism. The water example is modalism. The egg example fails to account for the fact that all three are equal in all respects--power, holiness, justice, wisdom, truth, omnipresence, omniscience, infinitude, eternality, etc. Even my own argument from geometry is simply a logical argument to show that the trinity fulfills certain criteria.

TBG

Shadowlander: don't forget that many biblical descriptions of God use anthropomorphic language. It's to give us finite humans some concept of infinite God. The language does break down at some point.

I understand what you're saying but by the same token I find it difficult to commit totally to the idea when there are so many reports in the Bible indicating that God has physical attributes. I'm not saying He is a human or has a human form (that's Christ), but the Angels have physical forms, do they not? Heaven is an actual physical place, right? Why is everything we see around us so heavily based on having physical shape, mass, weight, and description and yet we cannot assume that God also has a solid shape, etc? I can see where a few verses might be shoehorned into projecting an anthropomorphic image but there are lots that suggest that God is in a form that we might recognize were we able to see Him (and not perish at the same time).

The concept I've used to illustrate the Trinity, is not exactly easy around which to wrap your head, but I shall do my best (even if I'm not the all knowing poobah of Dr. Ransom)

There's about 10 folks that post in this thread regularly and each of them have different styles of writing. Most of the posts I can follow with relative ease (although the GB vs. TBG philosphical debates tend to use terminology which sails far above my noggin...scroll up for an example ), but only a couple of folks here are able to successfully translate difficult to grasp theological concepts into easy-to-understand language for folks like me. That's one of the reasons I like CS Lewis so much is because he could not only put complex issues into layman's terms but he was gifted enough to make it seem practically conversational, like he's sitting at my kitchen table sipping a cup of coffee and talking about the weather. The good Doc has that gift, so occasionally I'll fly stuff past him that I read about here and he uses his in built "Theology to English" translator. It spits out into a format I recognize so that I can better understand what the heck GB is talking about (the only shared language I have with GB revolves around good food and great action movies ). It's primarily because of he, wisewoman, and TBG that I became a Calvinoid. I'm not easy to swerve on anything and this is a great testament to their writing skills. I try and make an earnest effort to comprehend what's going on before the Bat-signal is activated though.

Confused? Good, that's the way it's supposed to be. If God meant us to understand all of it, he would have allowed it. Go ahead, struggle with it, try to wrap your head around it all you like, but it's the same feeling that most of us get when we watch a rocket go off into space. We have no idea how it works, or how scientists could possibly pinpoint where that rocket will be in 14 years. The only thing we can do, is sit back and watch how beautiful the rocket launch is.

I am confused, and I'm beginning to think it's futile to figure it out before we hit eternity. In fact I have to wonder if this will be one of those Great Mysteries we'll spend eternity trying to figure out. I do appreciate your illustrations though...you know, you really ought to post in here more often.

Again, these are manifestations, not exhaustive accounts of what God looks like. Even Christ said, "No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God." (John 6:46). The conclusion is that these were manifestations of God's presence, since God is omnipresent. I'll leave arguing for the corporeality of God to the Mormons.

TBG...sometimes...you make me want to throw up my hands and say "why bother asking?". Never mind.

Heaven is an actual physical place, right?

No--it exists outside the space-time universe.

but the Angels have physical forms, do they not?

Not necessarily--something may be non-corporeal and still visible. Certainly we have accounts of angels taking physical form (the visitors to Abraham), but this doesn't necessarily mean that they are physical beings.

Why is everything we see around us so heavily based on having physical shape, mass, weight, and description and yet we cannot assume that God also has a solid shape, etc?

Because such would violate the second commandment.

I can see where a few verses might be shoehorned into projecting an anthropomorphic image but there are lots that suggest that God is in a form that we might recognize were we able to see Him (and not perish at the same time).

God manifests Himself in various forms, but it is clear that they are not essential to Him.

I think it's clear from Scripture that God is omnipresent (Psalm 139:7), so I really don't see how we can square that with physicality because matter involves specific spatial location and temporal location--and God is in all locations at once.

TBG

In brief (because I must depart till this evening) the Jewish conception of the Messiah is wholly different than that of the Trinity. The Messiah (or Mashiach) is not considered to be a Divine Personage.

Don't take my word for it , ask a Jew:

http://www.jewfaq.org/mashiach.htm

GB

I have seen a few posts in this forum that seem stuck on the notion that people of Hebrew liniage all deny Jesus as the Messiah.

Might I suggest those who do look up Jews for Jesus?

There are several issues with the "God being physical" issue. One is how can an infinite, omnipresent God take a physical form? Our interpretation of physcial form required dimensions. And by that line of thinking, if God had physical form, that would in turn make him finite. And that of course is impossible with an infinity God. But something I've noticed in Scripture is several references to four dimensions. Paul in particular talks about length, width, depth, and breadth. We as humans see only two dimensions and perceive a third. We can't comprehend a fourth.

It was illustrated to me in Calculus 3, that you can project a 3D world in 2D via contour planes. You see these on maps, especially of mountainous regions, were each line on the map referes to a particular elevation. If that is what it is like to 'visualize' 3D from 2D POV, then our 3D world is the same thing to a 4D world. And someone pointed to me that God might actually have 10 dimensions.

So going on this train of though, it is possible to see God having a physical form, while still being omnipresent and infinite. And to think, God holds the entire span of the universe in the span of his hand. Just thinking about that will blow your mind. I don't know how much of this is really accurate and even if it is, I am certain it is only a piece of the big puzzle of who God is and what forms does he really take. The long and short of it is we will never and will never be capable of understanding. Afterall a finite being can't ever comprehend concepts that entails infinity. We just can't do it.

Heresy, TBG? How on earth have I committed a heresy by simplifying something complex. Let's just say that the egg is omnitient! (Twould make a rather interesting omelette, but. . . let's go with it). Now we'll make the baseball team omnipotent (World series here we come!). And we'll make the water omnipresent/other attributes (just for good measure).

I think you may have skipped the passage where I said that if one were to combine all of the attributes of these things together, one might get close to a definition of the trinity, but I believe with all my heart that we're never going to understand the trinity on this side of heaven.

Even to experienced Christians it can seem like polytheism. If humans were meant to understand it, they would. We just don't, and we never will understand it fully on this side of heaven. It is for that reason, that I don't feel like you have the authority to call somebody a heretic on a topic that they themselves cannot fully understand. It would be as if you went into a mechanics shop, and told them that they were fixing a vehicle incorrectly, when you don't have any idea what they're doing.

Secondly, I think you have to be very careful casting judgment like that on a fellow believer, who is just trying to riddle out the glorious complexities of the faith, just the same as you are. People come at all different levels of spirituality. Just because you may think that you are at a higher level, does not give you the right to condemn other people for their opinions. Whether my beliefs are heretical or not, is not up to you, but up to God, but at either rate, which might make God sadder (although He views all sins equally) a Christian who is trying better to understand? Or a Christian who rudely calls other a heretic, just because they don't believe the same way that he does?

I don't mean to cause trouble, but I think just blandly calling somebody a heretic, and "thanking them for their involvment in this thread" is a bit condescending.

(Drops in, offers some steaming hot French vanilla cappuccino, in the spirit of goodwill and the season, etc.)

‘Tis good to be back. Thanks for paging me, DiGs. And I would have been hanging around other times, except the discussion was about creation/evolution. Although I have definite views on that (there isn’t a stitch of particles-to-people evolution in the Bible, and I’m not talking about observable, valid natural selection either), I find most discussion on it fruitless, either because Christians agree or because they disagree. If you think evolution is in the Bible and are open to hearing rebuttals to that notion, there’s already plenty of those on the internet.

Doc Ransom, where are ya’ brother? Gotham City needs you to explain the Trinity!

Dude! That’s asking me to do something God obviously hasn’t decided to do for us. That freaks me out. I can’t do that! I wonder if even He could show us that complete truth, in this world or the After-World, exactly how His three-in-One concept worked anyway, due to our limited minds.

I would prefer it stay that way, too. So many Christians whine about how there’s not enough “mystery” in the faith, and then they go and do something silly like say it’s all “mystery,” say, why Jesus died. Clearly God thought at least one aspect of Himself should be a mystery: the Trinity.

So, sorry to burst any bubbles, but any attempt on our part to explain it will end up limited at best, or at worst lead to wrong ideas of God’s nature, even heresy.

And DiGs, I doubt TBG was calling you a heretic; I only read him saying those analogy attempts would draw close to heresy if we followed them to their logical conclusions: water, for example, is still the same water, only wearing different hats. That’s what TBG meant by “modalism,” the idea that God is not separate Persons in any respect, and only wears different “hats” — the Father Hat, the Holy Spirit Hat, and (oh no, here it comes) … the “Son Hat.” (Rim shot)

I can’t explain the Trinity. The Black Glove can’t explain it (and doggone it, even though he was a “Calvinist” before I was). DiGs can’t explain it. Shadowlander can’t explain it. Analogies with eggs and water and sunshine just don’t cut the theological mustard here. Give up. Though of course we can try to define and understand some of it, enjoy the mystery.

Yet it would seem strange at best to define God as “physical,” without extra qualification. He is physical, yet we are only told this is true in the Person of Jesus Christ, the God-Man Who came to Earth.

And that is what Christmas is all about, Charlie Brown.

I honestly don't think the concept of the Trinity is all that "Mysterious", just the orthodox explanation of it . As far as I'm concerned, it's just semantic wordplay. Really, I am just trying to help (really ). Monotheistic Christianity and the Trinity would make more sense if one just dropped the "Three Distinct PERSONS" angle.

God is Pure (Sentient) Spirit, on that I think most here probably agree, yet that doesn't preclude Him from manifesting in some form or another as TBG would say. If he manifests as a "physical" human called Jesus (or as a Dove or a Lion ), they are One and the Same Person, NOT a separate and "distinct" person. God's Spirit is His Life Force, His Sentience is His Soul/Mind/Will--they are NOT persons.

ONE God, ONE Person--who can manifest in as many forms as He wants (and simultaneously to boot as He is Omnipotent).

I personally think the entire Universe and All within are His Manifestations. Though, as I always point out, I do not think it necessary for Christians to agree with me on that point. But the rest of the above is logical and Maximizes Monotheism .

And by the way Shadow, I'm with you on the overuse of obscure Latin and Greek terms (too much of it makes my head hurt also).

And as far as "Modalism" goes, it seems a fancy way of saying "we like our Three Persons story and we're sticking with it" . I think Digs' egg analogy is suitable as far as it goes.

Merry Christmas & Happy Holidays

Gandalf's Beard

This is just a semantic quibble, but in such discussions semantics can become rather large distinctions: It's not a "misperception" per se, that Hindus believe in Many Gods, nor would it be a "misperception" to say that they ultimately believe in One God. They believe that we are all part of Brahma's Dream. And thus we are all God (or at least "Aspects" or "Incarnations" of God).

On the "Higher" planes of existence, Brahma's Incarnations are considered Deities in and of themselves. Yet they are all Aspects of Brahma.

I'll agree with you to a point. I've done my share of study of Hinduism, and although I am no expert in the religion, I know that there are many forms of Hinduism. The forms you describe are certainly a part of Hinduism and to that I concede your point as to the misconception I stated. However, there is certainly a sect of Hindus that agree with the single god concept with several incarnations of that one god which really was the point I was trying to address.

The Bible has the answer for everything! Church leaders are calling on the church to "Embrace Christianity as Total World and Life View." How? Through complete reliance on the Bible, God's Word!

The Trinitarian Godhead can not be explained through the Bible alone. A perfect example of this is the Hypostatic Union (Christ is one person with two natures: human and divine). Jesus certainly aludes to His natures and His person, but He isn't explicit in these facts from reading the Bible alone.

Some early heresies concluded that Christ had only one nature (either only human or only divine) or had two natures but also was two persons.

I recommend reading up on the early heresies of Christianity and how these issues were resolved.

I can’t explain the Trinity....Give up. Though of course we can try to define and understand some of it, enjoy the mystery.Give up. Though of course we can try to define and understand some of it, enjoy the mystery.

Hmmm. You might as well say that it's perfectly fine how the JW's and LDS view God then.

We better do more than just TRY to define and understand some of it. We NEED to define and understand some of it.

I agree it behooves us to explain things Styl . God gave us Reason for a reason .

It is true that there are many different approaches to the "Practice" of Hinduism (i.e. Bhakti Yoga, Shakti Yoga, Karma Yoga, Hatha Yoga etc.). And it is also true that there are many sects that devote themselves to one or more of the various deities which are aspects (manifestations or incarnations on the "higher" planes) of Brahma, and some that focus more on Brahma Himself (the "highest" plane).

I think what you are referring to are Avatars, or the Earthly "Physical" and human Incarnations of either the Aspects or Brahma. Krishna was such an Avatar, and is often identified with Christ in various schools of Hindu thought.

I am no "expert" myself, but I have spent a considerable amount of time studying Hinduism, Buddhism, and Taoism.

Lastly, during the first few centuries of Christian Thought, many ideas flourished. And the followers of one school of thought or another all considered the other schools "Heretical" . But in the end, at the Council of Nicea, one school of thought prevailed, and at that point the others became "official" heresies.

Peace on Earth and Goodwill to All

Gandalf's Beard

I did not mean to ruffle feathers or rub anyone the wrong way with my posts, and if I did I do very humbly apologize. My line of reasoning was that when I've come here before complex ideas that I've had trouble grasping in the past have been sort of...not demystified...what's the word? Ah, it escapes me. My brain is tough to comprehend (ask my wife sometime) and when something makes me curious I like to try and explore it. And of course trying to wrap one's brain around a concept as difficult as the Trinity is like the ultimate brain teaser or jigsaw puzzle, and that was the root of my inquiries. This is one I think I'll be leaving on the back burner for some time, maybe for a few million years , till' I have the ability and wisdom to give it another go. Again, I do apologize if I rubbed on anyone's nerves.

And by the way Shadow, I'm with you on the overuse of obscure Latin and Greek terms (too much of it makes my head hurt also).

Hence the phrase "it's Greek to me".

The Trinitarian Godhead can not be explained through the Bible alone.

Then why read the Bible? If we can't find God there, where can we find Him? The Bible is the complete revelation of the Trinitarian Godhead. Period.

And I interpret these as metaphorical and analogical accommodation to human limitations. If you want to say God has a body, you contradict the idea that God is a spirit and is omnipresent. God invented matter--He is not Himself a material being.

I agree with this, Shadowlander. Why? Father: "God is a spirit and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth" [John 4]. Son: "The last Adam was made a quickening [life-giving] spirit" [1 Cor 15]. Holy Spirit: "Now the Lord is that Spirit and where the Spirit of the Lord is there is liberty" [2 Cor 3]. The Trinitarian Godhead is spirit, not matter ... not just the Holy Spirit. What is the emphasis in Deuteronomy 4:15-19? That God is spirit, not matter, and revealed Himself via word, not image. "Ye saw no manner of similitude" [4] = you saw no form. In the context of idolatry [literally, gods of wood and stone], God asks Israel [and us], "To whom then will ye liken God? or what likeness will ye compare unto Him?" [Isaiah 40] He says the same thing in Isaiah 40:25 and 46:5.

Digs, while I appreciate your attempts, they all end in heresy.

I agree with Digs. This is going a little too far.

I can’t explain the Trinity. The Black Glove can’t explain it (and doggone it, even though he was a “Calvinist” before I was). DiGs can’t explain it. Shadowlander can’t explain it. Analogies with eggs and water and sunshine just don’t cut the theological mustard here. Give up. Though of course we can try to define and understand some of it, enjoy the mystery.

Christianity is the same way. Until we get to the other side of life, at the destination of our rocket ships, we will never understand certain things. But once the fog has cleared, and once our eyes are open, only then will we understand, and then we shall say, "Why, that is so simple! How did I not understand it down there?" But until then, we can only admire the beauty of the rocket, and assume that it exists because God said it exists, and God doesn't lie. End of story.

Agreed. At the same time, there's nothing wrong with trying to understand something, even with our finite minds. God gave us a brain and expects us to use it. The problem is using a finite mind to comprehend an infinite concept. In the end, it's not going to happen. But I liked some of DiGs' examples, even though they eventually don't do justice to the Trinity. None of our examples will.

I have seen a few posts in this forum that seem stuck on the notion that people of Hebrew liniage all deny Jesus as the Messiah.

Might I suggest those who do look up Jews for Jesus?

Amen, PG! I love Jews for Jesus. How do they explain Jesus as the Messiah? Well, click here and here.

I think the Bible makes it pretty clear that the Three Persons are unique yet completely unified in thought process, character, etc. Genesis 1:26 says "Let usmake man in our image...". Oh, but wait. I thought that chapter was just poetry. Yet Jesus said "the Father and I are One", and Deuteronomy 6:4 says, "Here, Oh Israel, the Lord thy God is one God.". Jesus also said he would send the Holy Spirit ahead of him while he was in heaven preparing a place for us.

All these verses, and there are many more, that the Father, Son, and Spirit, are not just manafestations of just one God-head entity. But we do have a very clear image of what the Trinity is like: us. God made us in thier image. Like God is Father, Son, and Spirit, we are body, soul, and spirit. How that really intertwines and works in the finite of details is beyond me. We don't know what true unity it. The closest images we can use for unity is Greek phalanges, (I think plural for phalanx), or turtling (strategy to create a wall of shields), or other military strategies in which the survival of the unit completely and totally depends of everyone playing thier part. I could list sport teams or other projects, but we all know that someone in those fields do make mistakes and often there is some 'battles' or heated discussions. But even military tactics don't really cover it.

In perfect unity, never do any of the parts that make the unit do thier thing independently, nor make any mistakes in the vision of the unit, or do any of the parts conflict with each other. The closest example we have of God 'in conflict' was at the Garden of Gethsemane, when Jesus begged his Father to go any other route but the cross if possible. The reason was not just Jesus as a man not wanting to have to endue the humilitation and physical torture of the execution. As part of the God-head Trinity, Jesus did not want to be separated from his Father. He knew that for those three days, the Trinity would be broken. But Jesus submitted himself to the Father's will and allowed himself to face God's wrath.

So conceptually, I don't think the Trinity is really a big mystery. How the little details work? That's another story. I'm not going to worry about the little stuff. At least not right now.

[

Well actually I did cover 'malaria'. I said:

As for regions, the same disorder might simply have different names in various locations. Like Tay-Sachs disease in Palestine, or Thalassaemia, a Greek term, in other parts of the Mediterranean.

Malaria in all three cases results in similar genetic diseases, such as Tay-Sachs (Jewish), Thalassaemia (Greek, Italian or Maltese) or Sickle-cell (African). All centred around the Mediterranean.

quote]
Hope you are still looking at this. Sorry I didn't respond sooner.
I was able to find the references to the diseases you mentioned. Yes I agree there is a malaria connection, I just had to dig deeper into to my resources.
While I would like to continue this discussion I see that the topic has changed. So another time perhaps.
I will watch to see if archeology pops up again.