Perhaps the words “different” and “same” are used in an idiosyncratic way.

The three could be different in terms of some thing but same as in they’re all God.

What that thing that makes the three not-same needs to be clarified. Could it be that the son is physical and the other two are not. We still need to distinguish the Holy Spirit from The Father. Care to take a go at it?

↪Rank Amateur Redundant nonsense? Of course there is an independent reality. We just can’t say anything meaningful about it without assuming the existence of a mind. Perhaps that is why there is a need for God. — Noah Te Stroete

I think I at least understand your point better. Let me paraphrase and see if I have it.

There is an objective reality- things are
But until this objective reality is observed by something with a "mind" (probably should define this), its existence has no value
Something must exist in thought to have value, whether or not it exists in objective reality

Is that close?

“Value” has a normative or qualitative connotation. Although what you said is true, I was talking about meaning.

Historically, the origin of the doctrine was an attempt by medieval (or earlier) theologians to reconcile the statements in the NT that could be read to imply that Jesus is separate from his 'father' and from the 'spirit', with the doctrine that there is only one god. — andrewk

According to Bozoist doctrine :smile: this is yet another example of the divisive nature of thought at work.

As example, the word "God" is a noun, and the function of nouns is to separate one thing from another. Thus, by the act of naming God, God is assumed to be something different from everything else, even though Catholic doctrine asserts that there is only one God and that God is ever present everywhere in all times and places, which implies that God is one with everything or is in fact everything.

But thought is still doing it's division thing, so the one God is divided from everything else, and then divided again in to three.

Here's another example of mind imposed fantasy division which seems relevant to the subject of God.

We have one word "creation" and another word "destruction" which implies that these are two different separate processes. Semantically this is of course true.

But in the real world every act of creation is an act of destruction, and every act of destruction is an act of creation. It's a single unified process which thought arbitrarily divides in to conceptual parts for reasons of conversational convenience. This act of conceptual division is useful, but it doesn't mirror reality accurately.

This is the kind of mess we inevitably wander in to when discussing many religious ideas. We're attempting to discuss a single unified reality with language built upon the process of division. So basically every time we name or try to define something we are generating more illusion.

To step out of religious concepts for a moment, consider the phenomena of space. We assign this phenomena a name, which presumes that space is a "thing" separate and divided from other "things". But as we dive ever deeper in to the nature of "things" we see that everything is overwhelmingly space down to the smallest of scales. We divide this single unified phenomena up to "existence" and "non-existence" which obscures the reality that all of existence is made of non-existence.

There's only so far we can go exploring such subjects with ideas, words, and language etc because that methodology imposes profound distortions upon what is being observed.

even though Catholic doctrine asserts that there is only one God and that God is ever present everywhere in all times and places, which implies that God is one with everything or is in fact everything. — Jake

Jake - just to be clear there is no Catholic doctrine that says God is Everything - that is your addition - Catholic doctrine says God is God, and God is everywhere.

Jake - just to be clear there is no Catholic doctrine that says God is Everything - that is your addition - Catholic doctrine says God is God, and God is everywhere. — Rank Amateur

Yes, I understand, I am offering my own interpretation of that doctrine, agreed.

My reasoning is, if God is everywhere, God is thus everything. That is, there is a single unified reality, divided conceptually by the human mind.

no there is one god. It think St . Patrick (Yes like the day) put it best. God is like a shamrock there are three leaves and each is part of the one

No one names the leaves of a shamrock as if they are different entities. It would be like Clark Kent really believing he was a different being a Superman and then not understanding why people are confused by that idea.

true no man would name the leaves but one they could. Two Clark Kent is not superman for their quatativly (sorry if spell wrong) different. Pyisicaly the same (numericy the same)
; quatativly different. (Book : every time I find the meaning of life they change it)

By calling Himself the Son of Man, Jesus was making a divine statement that set Him apart from His human flesh. He was conceived of the Holy Spirit in Virgin Mary’s womb. He was truly human as the rest of us. This is why, in the human form, He had body (Luke 24:39), He experienced hunger when He fasted (Matthew 4:2), was weary (John 4:6), had soul with human emotions – marvel and sorrow (Matthew 8:10 & Matt. 26:38), and bled when injured.

But the spirit with which He was conceived, was of God.

God is a spirit (John 4:24)

When we say that Jesus is man, we do not simply mean that he is partially man. We mean that he is fully human – everything that belongs to the essence of true humanity is true of him. So Jesus was hundred percent divine and hundred percent human, each nature is full and complete.

Evertime he says “Me/Mine”, He implies His earthly form. And when He says “My Father”, He implies the Spirit of God present in Him.

In Luke 18:18-19, as a man, He said that none is good except God. But as the Lord, He said “I am the good Shepherd” (John 10:11)

In Matthew 4:1-11, as a man, saw that the devil tempted Him. As the Lord, He did not fall into that temptation (James 1:13).

In John 8:28, as a man, the Father taught Him. As the Lord, He Himself is wisdom (1 Corinthians 1:30)

In Matthew 24:36, as a man, He was ignorant of when He would return. As the Lord, He knows all things. (1 John 3:20)

The Father, The Son of God, The Holy Spirit – All these are one.

I and the Father are one. (John 10:30)

For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. (1 John 5:7)

Whenever a number is specifically attributed to God in the Bible, that number is always one.

Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord (Deuteronomy 6:4)

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made, and without him not one thing was made that has been made. 4In him was life, and that life was the light for humankind. (John 1:1-4)

And the Word became flesh, and moved His tent in among us; and we beheld His glory, the glory as of an only begotten from a Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:14)

And His name is called the Word of God. (Revelation 19:13)

For He whom God has sent speaks the words of God. For God does not give the Spirit by measure (to Him). The Father loves the Son, and has given all things into His hand. (John 3:34-35)

So shall My Word be that goeth forth out of My mouth: it shall not return unto Me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it. (Isaiah 55:11)

but, just as the Father has commanded Me, this I do, so that the world may know that I love the Father. (John 14:31)

It is the Spirit that quickens. The flesh profits nothing: the words that I speak to you, are spirit and life. (John 6:63)

For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, (Colossians 2:9)

Then said Mary to the angel, How will this be, seeing I do not know a man? And the angel answered and said to her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon you, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow you. Therefore also, that holy thing which will be born of you will be called the Son of God. (Luke 1:34-35)

And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Go therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I commanded you. And lo, I am with you always, even until the end of the world. (Matthew 28:18-20)

And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Comforter, so that He may be with you forever, which is the Spirit of Truth – whom the world cannot receive, because the world neither sees Him nor knows Him. But you know Him. For he dwells with you and shall be in you. I will not leave you comfortless, but will come to you. Yet a little while, and the world will see Me no more. But you will see Me. For I live, and you will live. That day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you. (John 14:16-20)

This I have spoken to you being yet present with you. But the Comforter, which is the Holy Spirit (whom my Father will send in My name), He will teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have told you. Peace I leave with you; My peace I give to you. Not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your hearts be troubled, and do not fear. You have heard how I said to you, I am going away, and coming again to you. If you loved me, you would rejoice that I said, ‘I am going to the Father;’ for my Father is greater than I. (John 14:25-28)

For if I do not go away, the Comforter will not come to you. But if I depart, I will send Him to you. And when He is come, He will rebuke the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: of sin, because they do not believe on me; of righteousness, because I go to my Father and you will see Me no more; and of judgment, because the chief ruler of this world is judged already. I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot receive them now. However, when He is come (I mean the Spirit of truth), He will lead you into all truth. He will not speak of Himself, but whatever He hears, that He will speak, and He will show you things to come. He will glorify Me, for He will receive of Mine and will show it to you. All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said to you that He will take of Mine and show it to you. After a while you will not see Me, and again after a while you will see Me, because I go to the Father. (John 16: 7-16)

Simply, there is no verse that states that God is in three essence.

According to Swedenborg, this is precisely the case. There are three essential parts of a human being without which we would not be human:

Soul
Body
Actions
(“Actions” includes what we say or write as well.)

These are all common Biblical concepts.

This forms the basis for a simple, clear understanding of the Trinity in one divine Person of God:

The Father is the divine soul.
The Son is the divine body, or human manifestation.
The Holy Spirit is all of God’s words and actions flowing out from God.
We would never say that there are three “persons” in a human being because that human being has three essential parts: soul, body, and actions.

Similarly, if God has a divine soul, which is the Father, a divine body, which is the Son, and a divine proceeding or flowing outward, which is the Holy Spirit, we would never say that there are three “persons” of God. Rather, we would say that there is one God with three essential components.

Another way of formulating the Trinity in God is:

The Father is the divine love, which is the underlying substance or soul of God. (1 John 4:8 and 4:16 state that “God is love.”)
The Son is the divine wisdom, which is the expression or human presence of God. (John 1:14 states that “the Word became flesh and lived among us.”)
The Holy Spirit is the divine proceeding, which is God’s truth and power flowing out into the universe, and to humans and angels. (John 14:26 says, “The Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything.”)
If we think of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in this way, many otherwise confusing statements in the Bible make perfect sense.

For example, the highly philosophical opening statement in the Gospel of John (John 1:1-18) becomes a luminous poetic expression of God expressing himself through his eternal Word, which was made flesh (human) as Jesus Christ.

It also makes perfect sense that Jesus said “Whoever has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9), since Jesus is the human presence and expression of the Father, which is his inner divine soul. And of course, when Jesus says, “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30), that also makes perfect sense.

If any truth were to come to us direct from God, we wouldn’t be able to understand it. Pure truth as it exists in the mind of God is far beyond the capacity of our limited human minds to grasp. Much of the language applied to God in the Bible is poetic and symbolic rather than literal and technical. But the fact is, if God were to speak to us the way God actually thinks, we humans would not even be able to understand the words, let alone the ideas behind them. We would be like a kindergarten class attending a lecture by a nuclear physicist. That’s why the Bible uses metaphors such as “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” in describing God’s characteristics.

However, if we interpret these metaphors in the right way, with God’s wisdom, then everything that the Bible says about God, and about the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, falls beautifully into place. God took the cultural history that we humans carved out, and wrote a divine message on it. The finger of God has inscribed deeper, spiritual and divine meanings into the stories, prophecy, and poetry of our Bible.

And yet, if we look deeper, and see what God’s finger has inscribed into the Bible narrative, we can see more and more clearly the message of love, wisdom, and compassion for our fellow human beings that God is continually offering to us within those sacred pages.

God’s eternal divine truth shines through the pages of the Bible in a form that we can see, understand, and take to heart. And that divine truth has the power to transform our lives.

This blog post, of course, may raise more questions than it answers. But I hope it is enough to show that there is a coherent, Bible-based rejection of the widely accepted brain-bending and logic-defying doctrine of a Trinity of persons in God.

And let's not even get started on the virgin birth. — Bitter Crank

At least that's theoretically possible, except for the part about the baby-daddy being a deity.

yeah, i would have to agree with some of this. I do count myself as a trinitarian but when some Christians try to act like its hard to grasp i definitely scratch my head. The way i explain it to my self is. The Holy spirit travels between multiple geometric dimensions. Jesus Christ stays in the 3rd and 4th dimension and God the father resides in the 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th dimension. I really don't reject any of the beliefs by the Roman Catholic church on Trinitarianism. I would imagine alot of Roman Catholics Right Wrong or indifferent decide not to get into geometry or advanced geometry when discussing the Trinity.

I hope i didn't offend anyone with this but this was the forum topic.

of course the Trinity is logically coherent, although, not the Trinity as envisioned by Christian theists. There are three Trinities which precede the existence of our conception threeness, and the first involves Absolute Unlimited Memory, Absolute Time, and Absolute Subjectivity (Passive). This is the Passive and Feminine aspect of Being, i.e. The Mother. Then there is the Second Trinity, that being Limited Memory, Absolute Will, and Absolute Imagination. This is the Active and Masculine aspect of Being, i.e. The Father. And then there is the Third Trinity, which is composed of motion (I.e. objectivity), subjectivity, and perception (i.e. the bridge between them) i.e. The Synthesis of the Father and Mother, the Child, or, the "Christ," which is, you.

Thats interesting. Where did you get that from? As in I assume thats some form of New Age belief?

No, I’m a philosopher myself and im writing a book on the ground and essnce of being and Being, so naturally, I’ve been contemplating the trinity for a long time now. I really despise the new age, to be quite honest. I don’t make assertions without reason, they do.

"

"a book on the ground and essnce of being and Being, "

essence of being and being? I've never heard that phrase before. I don't expect you to go into great detail so that you can protect your book idea but i'm guessing the book deals with consciessness?

not entirely, but yes, it deals with subjectivity, that is, consciousness, in part. It deals with the essnce is Being in the absolute sense, that is, the nature of existence before the Big Bang, and also, the omnipresent substratum from which all minds and things continuously spring forth from, and the nature of existence (being) after the Big Bang, and the relationship between them.

I like your multi-dimensional geometrical interpretation!

thanks. I took it from a youtube video for the most part.

sounds interesting. I won't ask further because you still haven't published the book.

the element of Gnostic influences upon the Pharisees and the early Christians make it more complicated — Valentinus

Good historical comments, though I don't think Christianity was any particular single movement in the first centuries after Jesus had departed.

Greek philosopher Celsus (~ 175) noted the numerous, zealous Christian cults and factions, fighting more or less everyone (including their rival Christians), and their refusal to cooperate with, even debate, others.

Emperor Theodosius I (347-395) officially decreed them "dementes vesanosque" (demented lunatics) in 380 — everyone but the Roman Catholics of course, now rubber-stamped by Rome.

With Emperor Constantine (272-337), organized efforts to fight others and unite all under Roman Catholicism (i.e. under Rome) got underway, backed by the empire, in an attempt to strengthen the empire — something Tim Whitmarsh called "seismic" as far as history goes (heck, Catholics use the language, Latin, to this day).

The Romans tried to deal with the cesspool of cults, countryside preachers, resentment/dissidents, etc, of Middle Eastern antiquity, in their brutish ways, and Christianity, in the form of Catholicism, eventually came out on top.

And then a few centuries later, Muhammad emerged, and yet another religion hit the market.

And [for] their saying, "Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah." And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain. — Quran 4:157

The Trinity is logically coherent because the concepts upon which it is based can be defined in a logically consistent way.

That said, if one considers the historical development of the doctrine, the Christian Trinity seems a rationalization of Jesus' divinity within a monotheistic framework.

First, let me say that I'm not a religious person, so I'm not trying to defend any particular religion. That said, I think you can make sense of the idea of a trinity.

The problem is in the definitions as some have already pointed out. No definition will satisfy everyone, but that doesn't mean that you can't make sense, in some contexts, of the idea of a trinity. Definitions are just guides, they're not the be all and end all of how we use words. There is no definition that will satisfy every use of the word game, but that doesn't mean we can't use the word to refer to particular games.

My take on the trinity is simply this: There is nothing logically incoherent in saying that there can be three persons all partaking of the same nature and yet be three distinct beings. For example, let's say the nature of God is 1) omniscient , i.e., he/she knows all that is possible to be known; 2) omnipotent, i.e., can do anything that is logically possible; and finally, 3) omnipresent, in so far as one can make sense of what it means to be omnipresent. If consciousness is what is at the core of reality, then it could make sense that a being might be everywhere at once. Moreover, even if you throw one of the three core ideas (say omnipresent) out, you could still make sense of the other two. I think one can make sense of the idea, in some context, or some use of the terms.

The objections are going to be that the definition goes against some religious orthodoxy, but I don't care. My point is to make sense of it in some context or use. Just as we can make sense of children playing a game without the game have clearly defined rules, or without there ever been such a game before. We still know a game when we see it.

Here's what I think (again).

Father = F
Son = S
Holy ghost = G

1. Father, son and holy ghost are the same entity
2. The father is distinct from the son and the holy ghost

I guess people take statements 1 and 2 together to be mutually incompatible or incoherent or self-contradictory.

My explanation is this:

3. F = S +/- x
4. S = G +/- y

x and y are properties that are added/subtracted from the Father to yield the son or the holy ghost.

There would be a contradiction if the claim is
6. F =/= S =/= G as this contradicts 1 above. This is not what is beibg claimed. Rather 3 and 4 are being asserted and that simply means the following:

The father, the son and the holy ghost IS G +/- x +/- y and G +/- y and G. They're the same and yet distinct but not in a mutually exclusive way.

Are you an atheist?

Yup

Faith can be in conflict with reason: people have had and do have faith in all sorts of different Gods. Some of that faith must be misplaced. — Devans99

Must? Why? All the Gods we have ever worshipped are just names for aspects of God. All the same thing. Just different perspectives. So why must (some) faith be misplaced?

I think making a distinction between faith in a property/characteristic of God and faith in the existence of God helps.

So we can say faith in the existence of God cannot be misplaced (if God exists).

But if person X believes in God with property A and not B, and person Y believes in God with property B and not A, then I think you could argue that one person's faith in a characteristic of God must be misplaced.

But if person X believes in God with property A and not B, and person Y believes in God with property B and not A, then I think you could argue that one person's faith in a characteristic of God must be misplaced. — Devans99

I would argue that, if people describe God like a shopping-list - includes this ingredient; does not include that ingredient - then the problem lies deeper than misplaced faith.