Explaining the Trinity

[eahaddix]

How do you perceive or understand the Trinity?

[CoreIssue]

Three totally distinct personages totally equal in power, knowledge goals and such. None superior of inferior to the other.

Elohim used as a uniplural means they work together as a singular God.

God here does not mean a singular personage. It means a unity of three that has in that unity a singular personality, purpose and so on.

Hence on God or three persons. And why we can speak of God as person either in the singular or as the individuals making him up.

A government council is made up of several persons. But they are refered to as one, speak as one and hold power as one.

[Flames]

Good answer Core!

[Chrystalwuzhere]

I agree, Core... but have a question. Jesus refers to the Father, and how He leads us all to Him. Also, the Father knows the day and the hour that He will send His Son back, Jesus doesn't. Doesn't this mean that the Father is higher, or at least the head of the "Godhead," higher in power?

[TLIR]

I agree, Core... but have a question. Jesus refers to the Father, and how He leads us all to Him. Also, the Father knows the day and the hour that He will send His Son back, Jesus doesn't. Doesn't this mean that the Father is higher, or at least the head of the "Godhead," higher in power?
I’m gonna give it a shot.

A person of the world is not as great as the world. Even though he or she may represent the world and all its fullness. The person is as much the world as the world is but the world is greater in scope. One person can’t contain all that the world is, even though one person may represent all that the world is. I.e. I am in the world and the world is in me.

The Father is greater only in the sense that Christ can’t contain all that God is even though he is the exact representation of the fullness of God.

10 Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me?
11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves.

It would appear that the Son in becoming the Savior of the world might have sacrificed some of his omniscience.
At least until the end of times or perhaps until after his ascension or perhaps forever.
All I can say is it cost him something to save you. What the full price is I am not sure. But what we do see is that the price was great enough and urgent enough and important enough for God to respond with drastic measures. He sacrificed his Son.

[CoreIssue]

I agree, Core... but have a question. Jesus refers to the Father, and how He leads us all to Him. Also, the Father knows the day and the hour that He will send His Son back, Jesus doesn't. Doesn't this mean that the Father is higher, or at least the head of the "Godhead," higher in power?
Christ on the earth functioned 100% as a man.

Christ is fully God, fully man and fully both. He lost none of his diviniy. He took on humanity.

People keep forgetting this simple reality and see him as diminished when he took on flesh, different or whatever.

The spirit is Christ absolutely fully God.

There is not one speck of divinity about his flesh. That is fully man.

His mind is both God and man. So he functions and thinks as both.

Regarding the Father knowing the Holy Spirit does not know either. Which is not an issue of being less than the Father but of both the Son and Holy Spirit setting aside their exercise of foreknowledge in this area.

In his divinity the Son is still a full equal member of the Godhead. In his humanity he has no part in the Godhead.

His divinity and humanity did not merge into some new being. God did not change, as the Bible tells us he did not change.

[CoreIssue]

It would appear that the Son in becoming the Savior of the world might have sacrificed some of his omniscience
He only set aside his divine rights to live and die fully as a man.

He is and always will be equal to the Father in all aspects in his divinity.

God and humanity did not comingle throughout his whole being. Thus becoming something inbetween.

God does not change. What you say changes God. He is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. Unchanging.

God in completeness is not the Father. God is the First/Father, Second/Son and Third/Holy Spirit Persons of the Trinity in one shared unity.

God does not change.

[TLIR]

He only set aside his divine rights to live and die fully as a man.

He is and always will be equal to the Father in all aspects in his divinity.

God and humanity did not comingle throughout his whole being. Thus becoming something inbetween.

God does not change. What you say changes God. He is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. Unchanging.

God in completeness is not the Father. God is the First/Father, Second/Son and Third/Holy Spirit Persons of the Trinity in one shared unity.

God does not change.

I think what you said in the previous response better says what I was trying to say.


both the Son and Holy Spirit setting aside their exercise of foreknowledge in this area.

[CoreIssue]

I think what you said in the previous response better says what I was trying to say.
OK. The other just came across sounding like it was saying something different.:D

[TLIR]

OK. The other just came across sounding like it was saying something different.:D

It is hard for me some times to put into words what I am trying to say so they will appear theologically sound.
Being I am not a theologian. or have a thorugh command of the english language even though english is the only language I have.

[Chrystalwuzhere]

So, are you saying that Jesus and the Holy Spirit decided NOT to know?

(be patient, I'm trying to understand this)

The reason I ask is because of this verse:

John 14:28:

28 "You heard that I said to you, 'I go away, and I will come to you.' If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced, because I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I.

[CoreIssue]

It is hard for me some times to put into words what I am trying to say so they will appear theologically sound.
Being I am not a theologian. or have a thorugh command of the english language even though english is the only language I have.
Don't worry about it.

We get to the bottom line eventually!:goldtoot:

[CoreIssue]

So, are you saying that Jesus and the Holy Spirit decided NOT to know?

(be patient, I'm trying to understand this)

The reason I ask is because of this verse:



Yes. And for good reason.

God chose to use the Jewish Wedding Customs and marriage relationships in the Bible. You see them used over and over OT and NT.

Read the Jewish Wedding Custom thread I posted. It will help understand so many aspects of the Rapture, Church and so much more.

In that custom the Father, and only the Father, decides when the Son is ready to fetch his Bride. When he say go get her, there is no delay. He immediately summons his chosen escort and goes and gets her.

If anyone but the Father knew the time, then they would not be harmony with the chosen model for when the Rapture would occur.

But, let us face it. Since all of God knows when the Trib and such happen, no knowing is in the narrowest sense, as in the exact moment, not the wider time frame.

[Chrystalwuzhere]

And also, that same verse taken from two other versions agree:



28 Remember what I told you: I am going away, but I will come back to you again. If you really love me, you will be very happy for me, because now I can go to the Father, who is greater than I am.

And this is from the NIV:



28 "You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.

So, this is the reason why I have always believed that the Father is greater than the Holy Spirit and Jesus, even though the three make up the Godhead.

[CoreIssue]

And also, that same verse taken from two other versions agree:

Quote:
Originally Posted by New Living Translation

28 Remember what I told you: I am going away, but I will come back to you again. If you really love me, you will be very happy for me, because now I can go to the Father, who is greater than I am.


And this is from the NIV:

Quote:
Originally Posted by NIV

28 "You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.


So, this is the reason why I have always believed that the Father is greater than the Holy Spirit and Jesus, even though the three make up the Godhead.

He is not speaking as God here, but a man.

Further, Jesus in his humanity is not part of the Godhead. He is part in his divinity.

God by definition is three totally co-equals. None are greater than another.

[Chrystalwuzhere]

Gosh. :scratch:

How come Jesus is on His right hand and calls Him Father? Father, to me, always denoted the head.

[Chrystalwuzhere]

Take heart, Core... I drive my Dad nuts with questions sometimes. You've gotta deal with me now. :D

[CoreIssue]

Gosh. :scratch:

How come Jesus is on His right hand and calls Him Father? Father, to me, always denoted the head.
Right hand means preferred or most esteemed.

As the Savior, chosen king, first resurrected, the humanity containing divinity and so on he is esteemed.

He is not the Father of Christ's divinity. But his humanity. So he is the head of Christ.

And note he is sitting on the Throne of God. Not because of his humanity but because of his divinity.

He sits on the Throne because he is God. He is at the Father's right hand because he is the High Priest and Son of God.

[CoreIssue]

Take heart, Core... I drive my Dad nuts with questions sometimes. You've gotta deal with me now. :D
Is that suppose to inspire me?:eek:

[Chrystalwuzhere]

Is that suppose to inspire me? :eek:

Wait till you get a load of my next questions....:tease:

When did God create Jesus? And when did the One become Three... or were they always three?

And if so, when did God become Father, and Jesus the Son? :scratch:

[TLIR]

I'm glad someone else is here to answer these questions.

:roflmbo:

[CoreIssue]

Wait till you get a load of my next questions....:tease:

When did God create Jesus? And when did the One become Three... or were they always three?

And if so, when did God become Father, and Jesus the Son? :scratch:
God has always been a unity of three personages. Never ever has it been any other way.

And God did not become the Father. The First Person of the Godhead became the Father when the man Jesus Christ was created in Mary.

Jesus did not become the Son. Jesus is the flesh The Second Person of the Godhead took upon himself. Jesus did not exist until Mary. In taking on the flesh the Second Person became the Son of First Person because of the flesh, not the divinity.

God has always existed as three personages in a unity of one. That is what Elohim as a uniplural means.

Jesus has not always existed. The Son has not always existed. Both Jesus and the Son are because of the flesh.

Yes, as prophecy and promise they have always been. But not as a person in fact.

The name of the preincarnate Second Person was not Jesus. He was not the Son. The Father role of the First Person did not exist until Mary.

Mormonism, among others, is built upon Jesus being the preincarnate Son of the Father in fact, not promise.

[CoreIssue]

I'm glad someone else is here to answer these questions.

:roflmbo:
Gee, thanks,:not:

[eahaddix]

Three totally distinct personages totally equal in power, knowledge goals and such. None superior of inferior to the other.

http://fresh-hope.com/forums/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif How is this not Tritheism?

A government council is made up of several persons. But they are refered to as one, speak as one and hold power as one.

Your example contradicts your explanation. While each personage of the Trinity is fully God individually, individual members of a government council do not fully embody the government council. For instance, council members exercise governmental power as a collective, or do not exercise any governmental power.

[Chrystalwuzhere]

:popcorn:

[CoreIssue]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoreIssue
Three totally distinct personages totally equal in power, knowledge goals and such. None superior of inferior to the other.


http://fresh-hope.com/forums/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif How is this not Tritheism?

Trithism is the belief in 3 Gods.

Elohim as a uniplural means one God.

Because it is a God composed of three personages does not make it 3 Gods.



Quote:
Originally Posted by CoreIssue
A government council is made up of several persons. But they are refered to as one, speak as one and hold power as one.


Your example contradicts your explanation. While each personage of the Trinity is fully God individually, individual members of a government council do not fully embody the government council. For instance, council members exercise governmental power as a collective, or do not exercise any governmental power.
What contradiction?

Each Council acts equally and with the full power of the Council by the power of the Council. They are the Council in collective and Council as individuals.

No member of the Godhead acts as God unilaterally. They exercise their assigned roles within the Godhead individually.

Exactly how a Council does.

Look at a City Council. Each has one vote. The Council must decide as a collective on goals and such. None can step out on their own.

But after those goals are set within the Council each can carry an assigned aspect of Council power as theirs to exercise. Such as Mayor, Committee Chair, Oversight and such.

But they exercise these roles on behalf of the Council as a whole. Not as individuals.

So, my example is flawed in no way. The Father has been given the oversight role of the Godhead, the Son the redemptive role of the Godhead and the Holy Spirit the agent to the world role of the Godhead.

But each functions in ways they decided collectively and each is empowered by dictates of the whole Godhead.

Nope. No contradiction at all.



__________________
1 Peter 3:15 [Greek] (http://www.studylight.org/isb/bible.cgi?query=1+Peter+3%3A15&section=0&it=kjv&oq=rev%25203%3A%252010&ot=bhs&nt=na&new=1&nb=re&ng=3&ncc=3)
etoimoi aei pros apologian panti tw aitounti uma slogon peri ths en umin elpidos

Apologia {ap-ol-og-ee-ah} (Strongs #627)
1) verbal defence, speech in defence
2) a reasoned statement or argument

1 Peter 3:15 [NIV]
Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.

[eahaddix]

Trithism is the belief in 3 Gods.

This is correct. And your words communicate Tritheism.

Three totally distinct personages totally equal in power, knowledge goals and such. None superior of inferior to the other.

There are 3 personages with 3 mind and 3 spirits and 3 independent existences in the Godhead.
Source: The Divine Trinity and Triune Human Nature (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/archive/viewtopic.php?t=1763)

Independent ontological existence logically necessitates separate deities.

Elohim as a uniplural means one God.

Because it is a God composed of three personages does not make it 3 Gods.

Define "God." If each personage is "God," then how can the three personages be "one God"?

Each Council acts equally and with the full power of the Council by the power of the Council. They are the Council in collective and Council as individuals.

No member of the Godhead acts as God unilaterally. They exercise their assigned roles within the Godhead individually.

You are contradicting yourself again. If each personage of the Trinity possesses an independent existence as God, then each divine personage retains the unilateral prerogatives of God. Otherwise, the logical alternative is ontological subordinationalism.

So, my example is flawed in no way. The Father has been given the oversight role of the Godhead, the Son the redemptive role of the Godhead and the Holy Spirit the agent to the world role of the Godhead.

You are equivocating the economic Trinity with the ontological Trinity. If God (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/God) is a "supreme being," then God cannot be God when ontologically subordinated to God.

Nope. No contradiction at all.

http://fresh-hope.com/forums/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif "Because you say so"?

[CoreIssue]

The Uniplural usage of Elohim is not 3 Gods. Plain old Hebrew grammar. It is one God composed of 3.

Each is God ini the sense to speak of one is to speak of all. Nowhere does it say they operate solo as being an independent God.

Your logic of demanding three Gods is flawed. Show a lack of understanding uniplural usage of the Hebrew.

What are you doing? Going modalism or such? Scary.

[eahaddix]

The Uniplural usage of Elohim is not 3 Gods. Plain old Hebrew grammar. It is one God composed of 3.

Agreed.

Each is God ini the sense to speak of one is to speak of all. Nowhere does it say they operate solo as being an independent God.

Agreed. But in advocating three independent personages, you inherently advocate Tritheism, no?

Your logic of demanding three Gods is flawed. Show a lack of understanding uniplural usage of the Hebrew.

No. You are equivocating the meaning of 'Elohiym (Strong's #430) (http://www.studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=0430) with your explanation of the Trinity. However, I am questioning the latter, not the former.

What are you doing? Going modalism or such? Scary.

No. To the contrary, I am using this thread to examine the Trinity. Specifically, if each personage is independently "God," then how can the three personages be "one God" (ref. Deuteronomy 6:4 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%206:4;&version=31;), Genesis 18 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2018;&version=31;), see also John 1:1-2, 14 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201:1-2,%2014;&version=31;), etc.)? You emphasize the former part of the question, while neglecting the latter.

[CoreIssue]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoreIssue
The Uniplural usage of Elohim is not 3 Gods. Plain old Hebrew grammar. It is one God composed of 3.


Agreed.

Yuu do not agree per your second point here.



Quote:

Originally Posted by CoreIssue
Each is God ini the sense to speak of one is to speak of all. Nowhere does it say they operate solo as being an independent God.


Agreed. But in advocating three independent personages, you inherently advocate Tritheism, no?


No. Reread point one. Uniplural means multiples in a functional unity of one. Not one with mutilple aspects, which is modalism.
The stem of grapes the scouts brought back from the Promised Land was a uniplural.
Many grapes on one stem sharing a common nature and unity was called one grape. But they most assuredly were not one grape. They were many grapes sharing the unity of one stem.
Three personages sharing the common unity of being one God. All the same nature, power and so on. But three distinct persons.
Demanding one personage functioning as three personalities is modalism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoreIssue
Your logic of demanding three Gods is flawed. Show a lack of understanding uniplural usage of the Hebrew.


No. You are equivocating the meaning of 'Elohiym (Strong's #430) (http://www.studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=0430) with your explanation of the Trinity. However, I am questioning the latter, not the former.

Read above. I am not wrong. You are not understanding what a uniplural is.

Marraige, council, army, stem of grapes and so on are all uniplurals. And they most assuredly are one unity composed of many individuals.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoreIssue
What are you doing? Going modalism or such? Scary.


No. To the contrary, I am using this thread to examine the Trinity. Specifically, if each personage is independently "God," then how can the three personages be "one God" (ref. Deuteronomy 6:4 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%206:4;&version=31;), Genesis 18 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2018;&version=31;), see also John 1:1-2, 14 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201:1-2,%2014;&version=31;), etc.)? You emphasize the former part of the question, while neglecting the latter.

I never said they were independently God. Never.

The connection between them is never lost. To refer to one is to refer to all and to refer to all is to refer to one.

[eahaddix]

I never said they were independently God. Never.

Wrong.

Three totally distinct personages totally equal in power, knowledge goals and such. None superior of inferior to the other.


There are 3 personages with 3 mind and 3 spirits and 3 independent existences in the Godhead.
Source: The Divine Trinity and Triune Human Nature (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/archive/viewtopic.php?t=1763)

How does the underlined phraseology not equal Tritheism? Cooperation between divine personages does not transform Tritheism into Monotheism.

The connection between them is never lost. To refer to one is to refer to all and to refer to all is to refer to one.

http://fresh-hope.com/forums/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif Really? Can you explain what this connection is?

No. Reread point one. Uniplural means multiples in a functional unity of one.

This definition says nothing. "Functional unity" in what ontological sense?

Not one with mutilple aspects, which is modalism.

What are the logical alternatives, apart from Tritheism? Show me.

Many grapes on one stem sharing a common nature and unity was called one grape. But they most assuredly were not one grape. They were many grapes sharing the unity of one stem.

Hold on a second. Does "uniplural" mean "functional unity" or "categorical unity"? You are switching definitions as you progress.

With enough semantical maneuvering, one can label anything as a "uniplurality." For instance, what about piles of sand? Or bodies of water? These examples are easily classified as "formable unities of one." Hence, your variant definitions of "uniplurality" are irrelevant, if not useless.

Marraige, council, army, stem of grapes and so on are all uniplurals. And they most assuredly are one unity composed of many individuals.

So? All of these examples employ "uniplurality" under different contexts, such as an "interpersonal unity of one," a "functional or utilitarian unity of one," and a "categorical unity of one."

Three personages sharing the common unity of being one God. All the same nature, power and so on. But three distinct persons.

This statement results in the same question: If each personage is "God," then how can the three personages be "one God"?

Yuu do not agree per your second point here.

No. You are equivocating the meaning of 'Elohiym (Strong's #430) (http://www.studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=0430) with your explanation of the Trinity. However, I am questioning the latter, not the former.

[CoreIssue]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoreIssue
I never said they were independently God. Never.


Wrong.


Quote:
Originally Posted by CoreIssue
Three totally distinct personages totally equal in power, knowledge goals and such. None superior of inferior to the other.




Quote:
Originally Posted by CoreIssue
There are 3 personages with 3 mind and 3 spirits and 3 independent existences in the Godhead.

Source: The Divine Trinity and Triune Human Nature (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/archive/viewtopic.php?t=1763)

How does the underlined phraseology not equal Tritheism? Cooperation between divine personages does not transform Tritheism into Monotheism.

As I said and your quotes show, I did not say they were three individual Gods.

You do not understand the meaning of uniplural.

Three distinct personages as one God IS the meaning of uniplural for Elohim.

You are defining modalism where one personage functions as three personalities by what you are saying.



Quote:
Originally Posted by CoreIssue
The connection between them is never lost. To refer to one is to refer to all and to refer to all is to refer to one.


http://fresh-hope.com/forums/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif Really? Can you explain what this connection is?
All share one nature, one purpose, one set of values and on and on. That shared unity connection is never lost.

You do not understand uniplural.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoreIssue
No. Reread point one. Uniplural means multiples in a functional unity of one.


This definition says nothing. "Functional unity" in what ontological sense?
Sigh.
One grape. Composed of many grapes. Shared functionality and union by one stem.
Think about it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoreIssue
Not one with mutilple aspects, which is modalism.


What are the logical alternatives, apart from Tritheism? Show me.

Uniplurality.

Good grief! Modalism has been cult and heresie for 2,000 years.


Quote:
Originally Posted by CoreIssue
Many grapes on one stem sharing a common nature and unity was called one grape. But they most assuredly were not one grape. They were many grapes sharing the unity of one stem.


Hold on a second. Does "uniplural" mean "functional unity" or "categorical unity"? You are switching definitions as you progress.

It is total unity of three or more for the word Elohim as a uniplural. Three functioning, viewable. understandable lacking distinct difference and so on.

You are focusing on personages in multiple when uniplural Elohim is focusing on divine status as God. The divine status as God is held by their unity, not their indviduality.

With enough semantical maneuvering, one can label anything as a "uniplurality." For instance, what about piles of sand? Or bodies of water? These examples are easily classified as "formable unities of one." Hence, your variant definitions of "uniplurality" are irrelevant, if not useless.
This is a Hebrew term and concept. It does not translate directly into English comfortably.

We say stem or pod or grapes. Many attached to one stem. Hebrew says grape. Not grapes but the plural of grape used with singulars which is stated as grape.
We see a bunch of grapes and one stem. They see the the grapes and stem as one thing.
Now, when you can grasp that you should understand

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoreIssue
Marraige, council, army, stem of grapes and so on are all uniplurals. And they most assuredly are one unity composed of many individuals.


So? All of these examples employ "uniplurality" under different contexts, such as an "interpersonal unity of one," a "functional or utilitarian unity of one," and a "categorical unity of one."

Yes. But the Unity of God is even more unified than that. Hence we struggle to put our poor understanding of it into ill defined words for that purpose.


Quote:

Originally Posted by CoreIssue
Three personages sharing the common unity of being one God. All the same nature, power and so on. But three distinct persons.


This statement results in the same question: If each personage is "God," then how can the three personages be "one God"?
Not each person is A God. Not each person is THE God. But together they are God and one cannot speak of one without speaking of all in reference to being God.

We speak of God. We speak of the personages within God. We cannot truly speak of any of these as distinct from the other.

I am trying to put a very difficult thing into words. And the words lack.

[eahaddix]

Not each person is A God. Not each person is THE God. But together they are God and one cannot speak of one without speaking of all in reference to being God.

You are focusing on personages in multiple when uniplural Elohim is focusing on divine status as God. The divine status as God is held by their unity, not their indviduality.

http://fresh-hope.com/forums/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif Really?

John 1 [NIV]
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning.

14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

In John 1:1-2, 14, the second person is differentiated from the first person, yet both persons are called "God."

Hebrews 1:8 [NIV]
But about the Son he says,
"Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever,
and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.

Also, in Hebrews 1:8, God the Father (ref. verse 6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%201:6;&version=31;)) calls the Son "God." However, under your logic, the language of John 1:1-2, 14 and Hebrews 1:8 should be paradoxical. Moreover, when Scripture calls Christ Jesus "God" (Isaiah 9:6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%209:6;&version=31;), John 5:18 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%205:18;&version=31;), John 20:28 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2020:28;&version=31;), Colossians 2:9 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Colossians%202:9;&version=31;), Titus 2:13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Titus%202:13;&version=31;), Revelation 22:13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2022:13;&version=31;) [plus Revelation 1:8 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%201:8;&version=31;)], etc.), Scripture does not refer to the Trinity. However, under your logic, such language should carry this meaning.

As I said and your quotes show, I did not say they were three individual Gods.

You did not answer my question. How does "3 independent existences" not equal Tritheism?

You do not understand the meaning of uniplural.

Three distinct personages as one God IS the meaning of uniplural for Elohim.

But how does "3 independent existences" enter the equation of "three personages" being "one God"?

All share one nature, one purpose, one set of values and on and on. That shared unity connection is never lost.

Sharing things displays commonality, not ontological unity. So where is the uniplural connection?

Uniplurality.

But what does "uniplurality" mean? Thusfar, your definitions have been inconsistent.

It is total unity of three or more for the word Elohim as a uniplural. Three functioning, viewable. understandable lacking distinct difference and so on.

You are contradicting yourself. Are the three personages "totally distinct" or "lacking distinct difference"? Moreover, do the three personages possess "3 independent existences" or "total unity"? It appears as though you exchanged Tritheism for Oneness theology.

This is a Hebrew term and concept. It does not translate directly into English comfortably.

We say stem or pod or grapes. Many attached to one stem. Hebrew says grape. Not grapes but the plural of grape used with singulars which is stated as grape.
We see a bunch of grapes and one stem. They see the the grapes and stem as one thing.
Now, when you can grasp that you should understand

You sidestepped my point. "Unipluralities" occur in different contexts, as I previously demonstrated. There is no substitute for individual context.

Yes. But the Unity of God is even more unified than that. Hence we struggle to put our poor understanding of it into ill defined words for that purpose.

This is my point. I want to examine the uniplurality of God, not the uniplurality of grapes, councils, married couples, and so on. :roflmbo:

You are defining modalism where one personage functions as three personalities by what you are saying.

Good grief! Modalism has been cult and heresie for 2,000 years.

You are attempting to erect a strawman. I have advocated nothing, except obtaining straight answers from you. :cannon:

[CoreIssue]

Lucky,

Let me hear you explain what you see God as being.

Nothing seems to satisfy you. Almost like you are more interested in arguing than getting anywhere.

All I hear from you is modalism. And I wonder when you sent down that road if it is so.

[eahaddix]

Nothing seems to satisfy you. Almost like you are more interested in arguing than getting anywhere.

If you study my words, my focus becomes obvious. I wish to investigate the paradoxical nature of the Trinity.



If each personage is individually "God," then how can the three personages be "one God"?

How does one reconcile these paradoxical premises, without appealing to Tritheism, Modalism, or Ontological Subordinationalism?

[CoreIssue]

I think the problem is you are seeking too clear of an answer. One humans can grasp.

You are not going to get that from me or anyone else.

Got some reading for you to do.

The three Persons are the same in substance, i.e., in essence or in their essential nature, but distinct in subsistence which describes God’s mode or quality of existence in three Persons. By mode of existence we do not mean one God acting in three different ways, but one Divine Being existing in three distinct Persons within one Divine Substance or Essence. Again, this is not exactly three individuals as we think of three personal individuals, but one Divine Being who acts and thinks as one within a three-fold personality. This is incomprehensible to our finite and limited minds, but it is the teaching of the Scripture. “In the Being of God there are not three individuals, but only three personal self distinctions within the one Divine Essence.

Sound familiar? Yep. What I have been saying.

Go here and read (http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=215).

They are distinctly three. But in a unity of one.

I don't fully agree with the way this is said. But how does one describe 3 personages soe equal as to be one personage and functioning as one person while still being 3 distinct personages?

I cannot find the words. They always lack.

[CTZonEdit]

You have to take into consideration you are trying to describe the indescribable here. There is not enough that has been revealed to us to fully understand what this union is like other than the examples given so far.

[Chrystalwuzhere]

:aah:

This all just blows my mind, and challenges me at the same time.

Guys, I never saw some of this stuff. Amazing!

More! More!

Can you tell me more??? Give examples??? Anything???

[CoreIssue]

:aah:

This all just blows my mind, and challenges me at the same time.

Guys, I never saw some of this stuff. Amazing!

More! More!

Can you tell me more??? Give examples??? Anything???
Like what?:scratch:

[Jessie]

:aah:

This all just blows my mind, and challenges me at the same time.

Guys, I never saw some of this stuff. Amazing!

More! More!

Can you tell me more??? Give examples??? Anything???
:hug: is'nt it neat when that happens?

[Chrystalwuzhere]

Anything, Core...just anything.

Talk more about the three/one scenario.

[CoreIssue]

Anything, Core...just anything.

Talk more about the three/one scenario.
OK. I will give it a shot.

You hear many say that God is one substance means one being because God is one.

First, substance does not mean one being. The Bible uses it in the OT, in example, to refer to multiple things sharing one nature, as in all humans have one human nature, or physical make up, as in all animals are flesh and so on.

So, it means something shared in common but it does not mean one being.
Strong's Number: 5287 Browse Lexicon (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/browse.cgi?number=5287&version=kjv) Original WordWord OriginuJpovstasißfrom a compound of (5259 (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=5259&version=kjv)) and (2476 (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=2476&version=kjv))Transliterated WordTDNT (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=5287&version=kjv#Legend) EntryHupostasis8:572,1237Phonetic SpellingParts of Speechhoop-os'-tas-is http://bible.crosswalk.com/images/audio.gif (http://bible.crosswalk.com/cgi-bin/lexicon.pl?id=5287g) Noun Feminine Definition
a setting or placing under
thing put under, substructure, foundation
that which has foundation, is firm
that which has actual existence
a substance, real being
the substantial quality, nature, of a person or thing
the steadfastness of mind, firmness, courage, resolution
confidence, firm trust, assurance
And God being one does not mean one being either. God is not a reference stating a singular being but the nature, attributes or a being or beings.

El is a singular god. Elohiem (excuse spelling) means two gods in the singular form or two beings in the unity of being one god when in the uniplural form. And Elohim means three gods in the singular form or three beings in the unity of being one god in the uniplural form.

I could confuse the issue even more by saying it also means a might man or men but won't go there.

But Jehovah means Lord. It is always singular when referring to God because the divinity resides in the union of the three, not in the individuals. They together are Lord.

Now, as with all things uniplural to refer to one is to refer to all and to refer to all is to refer to one as far as the uniplural unity is concerned.

The First, Second and Third persons of the Godhead together are God. They are not God One, God Two and God Three.

When we speak of the Father we are not speaking of the Godhead. We are speaking of a role distinct to the First Person of the Godhead unique to him. As being Christ is a role taken on by the Second Person and being the Holy Spirit as a title being a role taken on by the Third.

So, Elohim is not the Father, not the Son and not the Holy Spirit as refers to saying the fulness of the Godhead.

You can easily see how not understanding this gives rise to errors such as Modalism and other conceptions that somehow have God as one being either functioning in three modes or one being containing three personalities within himself.

Think about it. What does one God of one being having three personalities within his one personage say about God?

Yet there are denominations and such that believe that. They believe it without understanding the consequences.

So, there is no problem in saying God is of one substance IF substance is used in the context of nature, power, the essence of what God is made of and so one. No problem in three independent beings sharing the same nature.

It is crazy people cannot see this. We speak of a singular human nature applying to all humans all the time. Yet we would never say there being a singular human nature means all humans are the same singular being.

Marriage is a uniplural. Two distinct persons are said to become one flesh.

The Body of Christ is a uniplural. Christ's blood unifies us with Christ so we are one with him. But we remain individuals.

A uniplural is more than one joined in a commonality. Like marriage, the Army, Navy, a nation and so on

Christ and the Father are one as regards their divinity. Christ and the Father are not one as regards Christ's humanity.

Christ via his humanity is our savior. The Father is not our savior.

I will stop there and see if that helps any.

[Chrystalwuzhere]

Helps alot. Give me more. :D

I could listen to this indefinitely.

[CoreIssue]

Helps alot. Give me more. :D

I could listen to this indefinitely.
I am not sure what else to say that would not be repeating myself.:scratch:

[Chrystalwuzhere]

Ya know, repetition is not necessarily a bad thing. :D

Hmmmm... did ya leave anything out? Perhaps we could start there. :D :D

[CoreIssue]

Ya know, repetition is not necessarily a bad thing. :D

Hmmmm... did ya leave anything out? Perhaps we could start there. :D :D
Might be better at this point for you to either ask about a specific point or say what you are seeing in all said.

[Brandli5]

This may seem corny to some but here is the way I explain the trintiy sometimes to little ones or older ones.

Trinity is like this:

Water can be in three ways: Liquid, Gas, Solid
Water, Vapor(Steam), Ice
So, its like the Trinty

Father, Son, Holy Spirit= One Just like Water, Vapor, Ice= One

One God One H20

One GOd One substance.


YOu have three differnt states, but they are the same.

I hope you dont mind me putting this up.

[CoreIssue]

No problem at all.

It is one way to say somethings can be composed of the same 'material' and yet still be separate.

[CoreIssue]

A good question here for those who do not believe God is three distinct beings operating together is simply how do you describe God then? Are the modalists right? Is God multiple distinct personages existing within one being? Or what?