# What if anything would be wrong with understanding the Trinity this way? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 11, 2009, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-anything-would-be-wrong-with-understanding-the-trinity-this-way/489088 "2009-03-11T15:51:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2009, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-anything-would-be-wrong-with-understanding-the-trinity-this-way/489088/1 "2009-03-11T15:51:02Z")
Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three separate entities. But they all have the same personality. And that personality is to be identified as God. The difference between the three is not in their personality, but in their circumstance. The Father is what someone like God would be like if they had the powers of… well… a God. The Son is what someone like God would be like if they were a human being. The Holy Spirit is what someone like God would be like if they were a community. A couple of sub-questions to help think about this: Is this idea compatible with the idea, in the abstract (i.e. divorced from particular verses from the Bible or whatever), that there might be “Three persons with one essence?” In other words, would the idea I just articulated be a good example of the kind of strange logical construction some Christians and most non-Christians have a serious problem with when considering the possibility of something like the Trinity? Is it possible to understand the OT God and the NT Christ as having “the same personality?” How incredibly unorthodox is it to assimilate the notion of the Holy Spirit to the notion of the “spirit” (so to speak) of a community of people? -Kris ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2009, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-anything-would-be-wrong-with-understanding-the-trinity-this-way/489088/2 "2009-03-11T17:55:30Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > Is it possible to understand the OT God and the NT Christ as having “the same personality?” Yes it is, Look at Moses’ relationship with God compared to Paul’s, both are on a personal face to face level, arguably Moses knew God more personally then Paul. ---
**Author:** ![gigi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a587f6/32.png) [@gigi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gigi)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2009, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-anything-would-be-wrong-with-understanding-the-trinity-this-way/489088/3 "2009-03-11T18:10:01Z")
Just a couple of comments. Depending on the denomination, some Christians believe that Christ incarnate was not what God would be as a human, but that He was true God and true man at the same time. And as far as the Holy Spirit, I think of that Person as grace and inspiration in someone’s spirit, not a communal phenomenon. Catholic catechism reference: > **[Catechism of the Catholic Church - PART 1 SECTION 2 CHAPTER 1 ARTICLE 1...](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p2.htm#253)** > > Second Edition English Translation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church with Index, Cross-references and Search Utility The whole divine economy is the common work of the three divine persons. For as the Trinity has only one and the same natures so too does it have only one and the same operation: "The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are not three principles of creation but one principle."97 However, each divine person performs the common work according to his unique personal property. Thus the Church confesses, following the New Testament, “ **one God and Father from whom all things are, and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom all things are, and one Holy Spirit in whom all things are** ”.98 It is above all the divine missions of the Son’s Incarnation and the gift of the Holy Spirit that show forth the properties of the divine persons. 259 Being a work at once common and personal, the whole divine economy makes known both what is proper to the divine persons, and their one divine nature. Hence the whole Christian life is a communion with each of the divine persons, without in any way separating them. Everyone who glorifies the Father does so through the Son in the Holy Spirit; everyone who follows Christ does so because the Father draws him and the Spirit moves him.99 ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2009, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-anything-would-be-wrong-with-understanding-the-trinity-this-way/489088/4 "2009-03-11T18:38:28Z")
> [@gigi](#): > > Depending on the denomination, some Christians believe that Christ incarnate was not what God would be as a human, but that He was true God and true man at the same time. Well, I am what **Frylock** would be if Frylock were a 30 year old lazy graduate student in Philosophy. That is not incompatible with the fact that I am "true **Frylock**. Similarly, what I proposed about the Son should not be thought of as contradicting the view that the Son is “true God.” ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2009, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-anything-would-be-wrong-with-understanding-the-trinity-this-way/489088/5 "2009-03-11T18:40:27Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > Yes it is, Look at Moses’ relationship with God compared to Paul’s, both are on a personal face to face level, arguably Moses knew God more personally then Paul. I’m not sure what question you thought I was asking, but what I meant to be asking was whether it could be true that the God of the OT has the same personality as Jesus in the NT. A lot of people think the two behave very differently, and if they behave differently, this seems to imply they have two different personalities. My proposal is that the differences in their behavior can be explained in terms of different circumstances and (concomitantly) different roles. ---
**Author:** ![gigi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a587f6/32.png) [@gigi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gigi)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2009, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-anything-would-be-wrong-with-understanding-the-trinity-this-way/489088/6 "2009-03-11T20:02:30Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > Well, I am what **Frylock** would be if Frylock were a 30 year old lazy graduate student in Philosophy. That is not incompatible with the fact that I am "true **Frylock**. Similarly, what I proposed about the Son should not be thought of as contradicting the view that the Son is “true God.” Cool. That’s as far as I can get since “completely God and completely man at the same time” twists my mind up! ---
**Author:** ![straggler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/3d9bf3/32.png) [@straggler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/straggler)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2009, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-anything-would-be-wrong-with-understanding-the-trinity-this-way/489088/7 "2009-03-11T20:25:44Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three separate entities. In what way are they separate entities? What are some of their differing qualities and attributes? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2009, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-anything-would-be-wrong-with-understanding-the-trinity-this-way/489088/8 "2009-03-11T20:28:39Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > The Son is what someone like God would be like if they were a human being. Just a slob, like one of us? ---
**Author:** ![FriarTed](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/friarted/32/1052_2.png) [@FriarTed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FriarTed)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2009, 12:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-anything-would-be-wrong-with-understanding-the-trinity-this-way/489088/9 "2009-03-12T12:40:00Z")
Technically, the OP vascillates (sp?) between tri-theism (three gods who are in unity) and modalism (one God in three manifestations). Yet it also approaches creedal Trinitarianism (One God in Three Persons). Now, tri-theism is definitely unBiblical. Modalism has been historically considered heretical but I can see the argument. The main thing that would be wrong with the OP’s understanding is the main thing that’s wrong with any understanding. If we think “we solved the Mystery”, we haven’t. The best we can say is “the Bible teaches that the Father is God, the Son is God & the Spirit is God, but there is just One God- and this understanding works best for me”. Tri-theism, modalism & Arianism (the Father alone is God while the Son and the Spirit are gods) try to close the case & “solve the Mystery”, usually by denying some aspect of the argument. Creedal Trinitarians can fall into the same error of thinking our definitions are the Last Word, but at least they generally acknowledge the profundity of the Mystery. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2009, 12:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-anything-would-be-wrong-with-understanding-the-trinity-this-way/489088/10 "2009-03-12T12:51:17Z")
> [@FriarTed](#): > > The main thing that would be wrong with the OP’s understanding is the main thing that’s wrong with any understanding. If we think “we solved the Mystery”, we haven’t. This highlights a fundamental difference in how we look at things. Smart people have tried for centuries to make sense of it and have all failed. You, as a theist, look at that and assume that it must therefore be a really deep mystery. We atheists look at that and figure it must be bullshit. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2009, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-anything-would-be-wrong-with-understanding-the-trinity-this-way/489088/11 "2009-03-12T14:01:44Z")
> [@FriarTed](#): > > Technically, the OP vascillates (sp?) between tri-theism (three gods who are in unity) Of course, this is only true in a sense under which Trinitarianism itself approaches tri-theism. Though Trinitarians wouldn’t put it this way, it does follow from the fact that there are three who are God and who are not identical with each other that there are three gods. The difference between Trinitarianism and Tri-theism is that Tri-theism doesn’t think the three gods have one essence, while Trinitarianism does. I was trying to formulate something that falls on the side of Trinitarianism. It’s not just that they are one in purpose (if that were the only way they were “one” that would be tri-theism) but rather that they are the same in essense. A criticism I expected was that I identify essense with pesonality, and that while this may work to an extent with people, it seems anthropomorphic to do this in the case of God. My response to that is the usual hedge: All talk about God should be understood to be metaphorical to an extent, my own talk no less so. > [@](#): > > and modalism (one God in three manifestations). This would only be true if the personality were to be identified _as God_. But on the view I’m articulated, the personality isn’t God. It’s God’s personality. > [@](#): > > The main thing that would be wrong with the OP’s understanding is the main thing that’s wrong with any understanding. If we think “we solved the Mystery”, we haven’t. The best we can say is “the Bible teaches that the Father is God, the Son is God & the Spirit is God, but there is just One God- and this understanding works best for me”. Either the doctrine contradicts itself or it doesn’t. If it’s a contradiction, it’s false. If it’s not a contradiction, we can (potentially) understand it, i.e., model it, use it to gain insight into other matters, and so on. (If Trinitarianism can’t be used to gain insights other than “Trinitarianism is true” then it’s worthless.) Is Trinitarianism in contradiction with itself? Typically, it’s expressed thus: Jesus is God. Father is God. Holy Spirit is God. None of the three are identical with each other. Is that a contradiction? One way to make it a contradiction is to interpret the “is” in the first three sentences as denoting identity. Since that would make the doctrine a contradiction, and therefore false, then if we’re committed to insisting the doctrine is true, we’d better not interpret that “is” as denoting identity. But it’s got to be interpreted as meaning _something_ or else there is no understanding it because there is nothing to understand. So, if you understand the doctrine, you must have some idea what “is” means in the first three sentences. Here’s what I’m proposing it means. If I suddenly met a mirror image of myself, not in a mirror, but in real life–someone who looks and talks and acts exactly like me–I’d say “That is me!” Clearly I don’t mean “That entity is identical with me!” sense it is obvious to me that he and I are not the very same thing. We’re two different things. But the sense of “is” in which the sentence _is_ true is the sense of “is” I’m using in my interpretation of the Trinitarian doctrine. What’s your sense of “is”? ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2009, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-anything-would-be-wrong-with-understanding-the-trinity-this-way/489088/12 "2009-03-12T14:03:53Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > This highlights a fundamental difference in how we look at things. Smart people have tried for centuries to make sense of it and have all failed. You, as a theist, look at that and assume that it must therefore be a really deep mystery. We atheists look at that and figure it must be bullshit. See, I’m not convinced smart people have all failed to make sense of it. I think plenty of smart people have made sense of it–though different people have made different sense of it–and others (smart people and not smart people) have insisted (AFAICT without basis) that it’s _supposed_ to be something you can’t make sense out of. On the contrary, I think the doctrine is ripe with sense-making possibilities. It presents a wonderful tool for doing some hard thinking about metaphysics, logic, psychology and divinity all at the same time. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2009, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-anything-would-be-wrong-with-understanding-the-trinity-this-way/489088/13 "2009-03-12T15:19:15Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Just a slob, like one of us? Just a stranger on the bus, trying to make His way Home. That song gives a better handle on the doctrine of the Incarnation, what it **really** means, than all the silver-plated-Jesus hymns ever written. ---
**Author:** ![Annie-Xmas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecc23a/32.png) [@Annie-Xmas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Annie-Xmas)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2009, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-anything-would-be-wrong-with-understanding-the-trinity-this-way/489088/14 "2009-03-12T16:55:16Z")
I’ve heard this idea described as throwing an ice cube in a pan. It’s ice. It melts, it’s water. It evaporates, it’s vapor. The separate things, but the same substance.