I'm sure that all of you, like me, take the time during an otherwise busy day to contemplate the Trinity, the Triune God accepted by most Christian faiths. It may surprise you to learn that some have found it hard to accept or understand the Trinity, when its nature of course should be clear to all thanks to this helpful diagram:
[/img]

Be that as it may, it's interesting to contemplate not only its nature but its origins. The Trinity after all is not mentioned in the Bible as such. Why, then, is it part of Christian doctrine? It's not a concept which springs to mind and on its face seems contrary to the belief in One God.

But while "the Trinity" isn't found in the Bible, other words are and their presence proved troublesome. The "Holy Ghost/Spirit" appears, and of course Jesus is referred to as the Son of God, and Jesus himself is inclined now and then to speak of his Father. Jesus, the Father and the Holy Ghost/Spirit when they're mentioned are distinguished, one from the other. Then, in Genesis, God has a tendency to refer to himself as "we" or "us."

What, then, were the early Christian leaders to do? They could ignore these confusing references, or accept that Jesus, the Father and the Holy Ghost/Spirit were separate entities or come up with an explanation for the references which was, somehow, consistent with monotheism. Some early heretics, like Arian, chose the second option, and maintained that Jesus was not of the same substance as the Father. Although some of the early Christian emperors were Arian, his followers and others who were unorthodox were eventually duly quashed, such explanations of the Scriptural references being deemed inadequate. The Trinity was accepted as One God, but the Son, the Father and the Holy Ghost/Spirit each being Persons in their own right, and as separate Persons distinguished in function and purpose but all being God. Though separate Persons they may be, they're all of the same substance and so, in reality, One.

If you're like me you'll think this is sorry stuff indeed, but Christian philosophers and apologists have been explaining the Trinity for centuries and much thought, time and effort have been expended, all to provide apost hoc rationale for the appearance of certain words in a Holy Book.

Here we have a problem which arises whenever certain texts are considered unquestionable, and I'd venture to say the problem may apply to more than religious texts. But in all cases I suggest that when post hoc explanations are needed or used in order to explain or justify writings of any kind which purport to be more than evocative, the lack of clarity which requires or invites those explanations is a deficiency in the writings and their authors.