Someone please explain this, if possible, because it’s got me rather puzzled.
I am a Christian. My understanding of the Trinity was always the orthodox - Father, Son, Holy Spirit. Now, for the time that Jesus was alive, all three were clearly necessary - God in Heaven, God in Flesh, God in Action. However, following the ascension, the Son would be in heaven, resulting in God being in heaven twice. Which would seem to be a little redundant, if nothing else.
Help, someone? What reason would there be for the “son” part of the Trinity to exist post-ascension?
Early Christians were jealous that the Romans and Greeks had several gods and they had only one. So, the father, son, holy spirit and saints were created so they felt that at least they were holding their own.
I was being facetious but now that I read over what I wrote I might not be wholly wrong…
You totally lost me at the bit with God being in heaven twice… the mainstream Christian view of the Trinity is that God has always been composed of three distinct persons, but they each completely constitute a single God (this can’t be fully comprehended) there are not three Gods, neither is each person ‘one third’ of God.
The Son became flesh and dwelt among us for a while (which presumably implies that there was some degree of separation between the Son and the other two persons, reunion occuring at the ascension.
AFAIK nobody has ever come up with a foolproof analogy of it.
Trinitarianism was one of several creeds in the early church that eventually won out over the others. It was all hashed out at the Council of Nicea in 325 CE, and more or less finalized at the Council of Constantinople in 381.
Its really interesting to read the accounts of these councils; one wonders at the balance of theology versus politics that took place to decide the ultimate and official creed of the Christian church:
Personally, having been raised Presbyterian, I must admit that I have never “gotten” the Trinity. The whole thing, especially the Holy Ghost, seems so elaborate and unnecessary to the other tenets of the church. God is a kind a powerful creator, Christ is/was his manifestation sent to earth to save humanity. No muss, no fuss. And the Holy Ghost is needed exactly why? And therefore it’s important to justify a relationship between three gods – why?
It was explained to me when I was a child that as a man, I can be a husband, brother, and father all at the same time. However, I am still just one person. These are just different aspects, or sides, of me.
Another way to think about it (which I came up with myself) says that God the Father has always been in Heaven. The Son is his hand in the physical world, while the Holy Spirit is his hand in the spritual world. Don’t know if that makes any sense to anyone else, but it makes perfect sense in my head.
No cite, but I recall reading a discussion once (and this was in Catholic school, so there may be something to it) that, when the doctrine of the trinity was formulated, the word usually translated as “person” was more appropriately translated as “mask” or “identity”. So the doctrine was talking more about three different ways that people can experience God.
There seems to be a misapprehension here that the idea of the Trinity is a convenient philosophical abstraction, to be bought into or not as seems sensible. Rather, it’s an attempt, within the confines of theology and human thought processes, to deal with the perceptions of Christians from earliest times to the present that a single God appears to manifest Himself to humans in three different ways, occasionally simultaneously, and to appear to be three different personae within one Godhead.
You might as well throw out the idea of muons and hyperons, since it makes unnecessarily complex the proton-neutron-electron model of matter, or decide that it’s unnecessary to have three laws of thermodynamics when one would be simpler.
Simple really: How can we justify worshipping Jesus if the 1st Commandment clearly states that “Thou shalt have no other gods before me”? Solution: Make up some deal where Jesus and God are both part of a singular entity.
‘Convenient’? I don’t find inscrutibility particularly convenient in my beliefs.
Please elaborate on this; I can’t imagine that all Christians constantly and have always felt this tripartite mystery (certainly not in my own case), but perhaps I’m missing your point.
Certainly, taking the divinity of Christ as a given (else why have this conversation), why do we need the HG to make the picture complete?
Sqweels: Maybe. In fact, what you said is a quite sarcastic way of defining what happened at the Councils of Nicaea and Constantinople. The basic experience of the early Christians was this: “In seeing Jesus, we see God.” Coming from a culture which expected them to be strong monotheists, they were required by their own intellectual honesty to define some means by which the paradox of the inherent Oneness of God and the experienced Multipleness of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit could be resolved. The dogma of the Trinity was their answer. (My comment: you’re not obliged to believe in the Dogma of the Trinity to be a Christian, but you are obliged to believe in the Trinity Itself – the three Persons who together constitute One God.)
Squeegee: Only fair answer to your question is that they experienced the Holy Spirit as God present within, guiding, convicting of sin, reassuring, comforting, strengthening. And reacted to Him as distinct from God propria persona (=Father in Christian understanding) and from Jesus. Identifying Him as a Third Person in a Trinity was the simplest explanation.
Granted, none of it is logically required. The world would be a lot more comprehensible without the requirement to factor the speed of light squared into virtually every equation related to physical properties, too – but, unfortunately, Newton was in error (or, rather, didn’t take a value minimally small for matter at rest or traveling at relatively slow speed into account) and we have to.
It is not redundant to have “two Gods” in heaven. As the Nicene creed states of Jesus:
“eternally begotten of the Father, begotten not made, God from God, true light from true light, one in being with the Father, through Him all things were made.”
Jesus has clearly existed for all time before his brief time walking as man and has existed eternally since.
The Trinity has always existed, thus there has always been one God with three essences in heaven and one God with three essences on Earth.
Trinity is indeed a difficult concept, that is why it is known as a sacred mystery.
Designed to cover over a problem that came along the idea that Jesus is devine. See, if Jesus is an aspect of God, then god has two aspects. But two is an inauspicious number, so they postulate a third aspect : ‘holy spirit’ to get back into numeric harmony. Simple.
