# Give a simple explanation of the Trinity.



## SemperFiDawg

This popped into my mind yesterday during service.  (Yes it got a little boring and my mind wandered). How would you explain the Trinity in a simple manner.  The best I've ever understood it was as H2O. Meaning, whether being in vapor, ice, or liquid it's still H2O.   

Just interested in some other SIMPLE visualizations.


----------



## centerpin fan

SemperFiDawg said:


> The best I've ever understood it was as H2O. Meaning, whether being in vapor, ice, or liquid it's still H2O.



That might be interpreted as modalism:

http://www.theopedia.com/modalism

God's nature is Divine, and He is revealed in three distinct persons:  God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.

That's the "simple" answer, but it's still a difficult concept to grasp.


----------



## Artfuldodger

I think the h2o analogy explains oneness as the molecule of water can't be all three at the same time.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

I realize it's limitations.  Was hoping  someone could provide a better one.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

centerpin fan said:


> That might be interpreted as modalism:
> 
> http://www.theopedia.com/modalism
> 
> God's nature is Divine, and He is revealed in three distinct persons:  God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.
> 
> That's the "simple" answer, but it's still a difficult concept to grasp.



Hey CPF.  If you have to provide a link to define a word you used,  I think you violated the part about keeping it simple.  You feeling OK today?  You are the master of one liners, yet Art of all people simplified your reply.


----------



## hobbs27

Semperfi.... There's just no simple way to explain it. It's even very hard to defend,  so one either believes it from their understanding of the scriptures or they don't.


----------



## formula1

*re:*

I just try to think of it as God the Father (from which all His purposes originate in us), God the Son (our intercessor and advocate and redeemer to name a few), and God the Holy Spirit(the one who walks with us, helping us to carry out the will of the Father thru the Son), each having different roles in creation but all are one in purpose, message and plan.  That's the best I can do in my little mind!


----------



## Dr. Strangelove

You can't have one without the others! Dang, now I wanna make some gumbo.


----------



## centerpin fan

SemperFiDawg said:


> Hey CPF.  If you have to provide a link to define a word you used,  I think you violated the part about keeping it simple.  You feeling OK today?



The shock of seeing orthodox theological question posted in the Spiritual forum left me feeling a little verklempt. 








I probably should have given myself 24 hours of recovery time before replying.


----------



## welderguy

One God in three persons.


----------



## NE GA Pappy

I am my wife's husband, my children's dad, and my grandbabies Pappy, but I am one person known by 3 different names.  I have different traits that I let be shown in the different relationships.

One being, 3 personalities


----------



## rjcruiser

It's like an old black woman, a carpenter and an Asian woman who likes to garden.


----------



## welderguy

The three persons of the trinity are unified , as one God.
Think of a husband and wife. They are two different people, but are one in marriage. That is ,of course, an imperfect example, but my point is that it's not 1/3 + 1/3 +1/3=1.

But rather 1+1+1=1

Hope that didn't confuse you more.


----------



## hummerpoo

1700+ years of men failing to explain what men can not understand.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

NE GA Pappy said:


> I am my wife's husband, my children's dad, and my grandbabies Pappy, but I am one person known by 3 different names.  I have different traits that I let be shown in the different relationships.
> 
> One being, 3 personalities



I like this one.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

rjcruiser said:


> It's like an old black woman, a carpenter and an Asian woman who likes to garden.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

welderguy said:


> The three persons of the trinity are unified , as one God.
> Think of a husband and wife. They are two different people, but are one in marriage. That is ,of course, an imperfect example, but my point is that it's not 1/3 + 1/3 +1/3=1.
> 
> But rather 1+1+1=1
> 
> Hope that didn't confuse you more.



I understand it.  I just don't know how to explain it simply. To which C.S. Lewis would say meant I didn't understand it very well.  In which case he would be correct.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

hummerpoo said:


> 1700+ years of men failing to explain what men can not understand.



I don't understand the 1700 year reference.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

centerpin fan said:


> The shock of seeing orthodox theological question posted in the Spiritual forum left me feeling a little verklempt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I probably should have given myself 24 hours of recovery time before replying.



You think that's bad?  I've been diagnosed with modalism and didn't even know I had it.  Should have suspected something more sinister was going on when my toe-nail fungus didn't respond to conventional treatment.


----------



## 1gr8bldr

Wonder why Paul, or Peter never explained it. Surely  something so hard to grasp would need clarification. Especially since their extreme monotheistic belief is now being said to  have 3 equal parts????


----------



## gordon 2

Jesus is the servant spirit of God but also totally God. The Holy Spirit is the teaching spirit of God but also totally God.  The Father is the the loving spirit of God and totally God.

They are one and all the same being and yet three,  manifesting  separately as three in our existence as man yet in the fall, or the "worldly".

When Jesus hands his kingdom to the Father and all life on earth is removed (Zehaniah) to be replaced by His remnant people it will be a whole lot simpler to explain, but this is the best I can do today.

God as a loving spirit is Creator , Father of the oppressed, Son-savior-servant-creator and as HS the teacher, savior- servant-creator...


----------



## rjcruiser

SemperFiDawg said:


>


----------



## gordon 2

1gr8bldr said:


> Wonder why Paul, or Peter never explained it. Surely  something so hard to grasp would need clarification. Especially since their extreme monotheistic belief is now being said to  have 3 equal parts????



Paul had "seen" Jesus, I suspect is was a bit jaw dropping that he had lived considering his upbringing. I suspect then that Paul knew that even seeing God in this life as one and the trinity was not the goal of the gospel.  The goal and task was to do an assessment of man, not of God. Perhaps.


----------



## hummerpoo

SemperFiDawg said:


> I don't understand the 1700 year reference.



Sorry, it was my clumsy attempt to say that, in my opinion, the failure preceded  the doctrine being formalized in the Nicene Creed (325 A.D).

We fail miserably in our understanding of relationships among ourselves, and what we think we understand, we fail to successfully implement; which leaves our supposed understanding unsubstantiated.  How could we possibly even think of defining relationship within the Devine?


----------



## welderguy

Banjo Picker said:


> All three together are not in one body, and not God, God is God, Jesus is Jesus, and the Holy Ghost is the Holy Ghost, they are different persons, think about it why would Jesus pray to the Father if He were all ready the Father?.




1 John 5:7

7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.


----------



## hobbs27

Banjo Picker said:


> All three together are not in one body, and not God, God is God, Jesus is Jesus, and the Holy Ghost is the Holy Ghost, they are different persons, think about it why would Jesus pray to the Father if He were all ready the Father?  How many on here pray to there self.





And Centerpin fan is no longer verklempt.


----------



## gordon 2

hummerpoo said:


> Sorry, it was my clumsy attempt to say that, in my opinion, the failure preceded  the doctrine being formalized in the Nicene Creed (325 A.D).
> 
> We fail miserably in our understanding of relationships among ourselves, and what we think we understand, we fail to successfully implement; which leaves our supposed understanding unsubstantiated.  How could we possibly even think of defining relationship within the Devine?




Hum! By what God does and by what He says and in these God is basically Himself.??? Maybe. The relationship definitions are a feature of our grasping at a pant leg, and then a shirt sleeve and then touching the lips in fear of loosing the relationship. Maybe.


----------



## gordon 2

welderguy said:


> 1 John 5:7
> 
> 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.



Is heaven eternal or forever might be a better word? According to the prophets will heaven itself be rubbed out with all the other heavens someday?


----------



## hummerpoo

gordon 2 said:


> Hum! By what God does and by what He says and in these God is basically Himself.??? Maybe. The relationship definitions are a feature of our grasping at a pant leg, and then a shirt sleeve and then touching the lips in fear of loosing the relationship. Maybe.



"grasping" is an apt description. (Ps. 46:10)


----------



## welderguy

gordon 2 said:


> Is heaven eternal or forever might be a better word? According to the prophets will heaven itself be rubbed out with all the other heavens someday?



Yes, I believe heaven is eternal and forever.(1 Thessalonians 4:17)


----------



## Artfuldodger

"the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.” 

Is John describing the Trinity or the life, birth, and death of Jesus? Perhaps his birth, death on the Cross, and his Resurrection.

John is defending that Jesus is the Son of God and that he is the Messiah. That he died and resurrected.


----------



## Artfuldodger

rjcruiser said:


> It's like an old black woman, a carpenter and an Asian woman who likes to garden.



I didn't know you were referring to a movie. I still saw those three as the Trinity. It's a good explanation.


----------



## Artfuldodger

hummerpoo said:


> 1700+ years of men failing to explain what men can not understand.



I tend to agree. Maybe just Unity explains it best.


----------



## gordon 2

welderguy said:


> Yes, I believe heaven is eternal and forever.(1 Thessalonians 4:17)



Ok so I'm not going to go further with this line, not to derail tread, although it probably already has a life of itself by now, your source is about the resurrection and our Lord comeing down from heaven. I don't see the "forever" connection...

But alas... let us return to simplicity in articulating one's understanding of the Trinity or should I say God as a trinity....


thanks bros.


----------



## hummerpoo

Artfuldodger said:


> I tend to agree. Maybe just Unity explains it best.



I know what you are saying. But when we look at all of Scripture, I don't see how "just Unity" can be supported.  That being said, there seem to be two very dangerous elements in play: that the clearly and simply stated unity be in someway weakened, and that we project more into what we are given than it can support.  There is much said that stretches well beyond the limits of the text.


----------



## gordon 2

hummerpoo said:


> I know what you are saying. But when we look at all of Scripture, I don't see how "just Unity" can be supported.  That being said, there seem to be two very dangerous elements in play: that the clearly and simply stated unity be in someway weakened, and that we project more into what we are given than it can support.  There is much said that stretches well beyond the limits of the text.



So it is not "textual" this" much more"... but yet "some, we, us and some of them and all of them ones there" hear the voice of the Lord....  be it the Father's, the Son or the Holy Spirit's as one voice...

How about if the Son is fully in the Father and the Father is fully in the Son and this full in-ness is essentially the Holy Spirit which is in " some, we and some of them and all of them ones there"? And the small amounts we can project  don't amount to much comparatively.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Another mystery is if the Son of God has always been, who was his mother? Mary was his earthly mother at his incarnation. I would assume God could have a son without a mother. Then again, if the Son always existed, God didn't "have" a son. He was the Son.
The Son didn't really need a mother until he became incarnate. Yet he was begotten or fathered. He has existed just as long as his Father has.
God "had" a son. Well not really he has always existed. Maybe begotten it the wrong interpretation. You can't begot an always existing deity.
Unless you are that deity.

Unity.


----------



## 1gr8bldr

Hey Art, I don't want to sound like I am trying to debate the trinity, but I can't overlook 1 John 5;7. It needs to be taken off the trinitarian go to verse. The context about Moses, if they don't believe the previous miracles, that I sent you, then take water a pour it in the nile and it will become blood. In John 5;7, the KJ translators took this and made it fit their theology.  Jesus came sent by God in which the HS testifies by water and blood, when the soldiers pierced his side. This has gotten all mixed up in our modern versions.


----------



## Artfuldodger

1gr8bldr said:


> Wonder why Paul, or Peter never explained it. Surely  something so hard to grasp would need clarification. Especially since their extreme monotheistic belief is now being said to  have 3 equal parts????



Did Paul believe in the preexistence of Jesus? Did the Jews believe in the preexistence of a Messiah?


----------



## Artfuldodger

1gr8bldr said:


> Hey Art, I don't want to sound like I am trying to debate the trinity, but I can't overlook 1 John 5;7. It needs to be taken off the trinitarian go to verse. The context about Moses, if they don't believe the previous miracles, that I sent you, then take water a pour it in the nile and it will become blood. In John 5;7, the KJ translators took this and made it fit their theology.  Jesus came sent by God in which the HS testifies by water and blood, when the soldiers pierced his side. This has gotten all mixed up in our modern versions.



I would agree, there are many Trinitarians that feel the same way. It shouldn't be used  to prove the Trinity exist. Use it to prove that the Spirit, blood, and water testify.


----------



## Big7

So, you want simple?

Go HERE:
https://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/GODA22.htm

And though my particular faith does not allow self discernment
of Scripture, let's just say for the purpose of this thread,
that anything we can not understand, God has it figured out FOR us and HE will reveal it in His own time.

Other than that, we have to run on what has been revealed 
and have FAITH in what has not.

FAITH being the operative on this one.


----------



## Israel

hummerpoo said:


> Sorry, it was my clumsy attempt to say that, in my opinion, the failure preceded  the doctrine being formalized in the Nicene Creed (325 A.D).
> 
> We fail miserably in our understanding of relationships among ourselves, and what we think we understand, we fail to successfully implement; which leaves our supposed understanding unsubstantiated.  How could we possibly even think of defining relationship within the Devine?



^^^^^^that^^^^^

I in them, and Thou in me, that they may be perfected into one, and that the world may know that Thou didst send me, and didst love them as Thou didst love me.

This cannot be grasped...but it is to be believed and received.


----------



## hummerpoo

Israel said:


> ^^^^^^that^^^^^
> 
> I in them, and Thou in me, that they may be perfected into one, and that the world may know that Thou didst send me, and didst love them as Thou didst love me.
> 
> This cannot be grasped...but it is to be believed and received.



As I sat musing your post I noticed that the 1st and 2nd person pronouns (I and Thou) have active voice verbs, and the third person (they and the world >>and them<<) have passive voice verbs, and a big smile came with — we may  not understand how it works, but we are told why it works.

Deut 32:
1 “Let my teaching drop as the rain,
My speech distill as the dew,
As the droplets on the fresh grass
And as the showers on the herb.
3 “For I proclaim the name of the Lord;
Ascribe greatness to our God!
4 “The Rock! His work is perfect,
For all His ways are just;
A God of faithfulness and without injustice,
Righteous and upright is He.


----------



## 1gr8bldr

Artfuldodger said:


> Did Paul believe in the preexistence of Jesus? Did the Jews believe in the preexistence of a Messiah?


If he did then calling him the second Adam would not work. He would be the first. The Jews, unlike our generation, believed in Jesus not pre existing actually but "in word". Because those of faith believed God's promises as fact, although not already come to pass. "and the word became flesh"


----------



## hobbs27

1gr8bldr said:


> If he did then calling him the second Adam would not work. He would be the first. The Jews, unlike our generation, believed in Jesus not pre existing actually but "in word". Because those of faith believed God's promises as fact, although not already come to pass. "and the word became flesh"



Second Adam won't work anyway.  He was the last Adam.


----------



## gordon 2

Israel said:


> ^^^^^^that^^^^^
> 
> I in them, and Thou in me, that they may be perfected into one, and that the world may know that Thou didst send me, and didst love them as Thou didst love me.
> 
> This cannot be grasped...but it is to be believed and received.



And understood! Or the verse gets written 50 times on the blackboard--after school.


----------



## Artfuldodger

How could Jesus be the last Adam if he pre-existed before the first Adam?


----------



## welderguy

Artfuldodger said:


> How could Jesus be the last Adam if he pre-existed before the first Adam?



He was manifested in the flesh without sin.(keyword "manifested"

1 Cor.15:47
 The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.


----------



## hobbs27

welderguy said:


> He was manifested in the flesh without sin.(keyword "manifested"
> 
> 1 Cor.15:47
> The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.



Look at this translation. 

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
The first man was dust from the ground; The second man, THE LORD JEHOVAH from Heaven.


----------



## welderguy

hobbs27 said:


> Look at this translation.
> 
> Aramaic Bible in Plain English
> The first man was dust from the ground; The second man, THE LORD JEHOVAH from Heaven.



I like that!

Also, Hebrews 7 likens Melchizedek to Jesus, saying he had no record of a beginning or end.
Jesus had no beginning or end.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

Whelp!  I see the spirit of this thread has followed the swine right off the abyss.  Thanks for the input while it lasted.


----------



## centerpin fan

SemperFiDawg said:


> Whelp!  I see the spirit of this thread has followed the swine right off the abyss.  Thanks for the input while it lasted.



It's the sad but inevitable outcome of most threads in here.


----------



## 1gr8bldr

SemperFiDawg said:


> Whelp!  I see the spirit of this thread has followed the swine right off the abyss.  Thanks for the input while it lasted.


Sorry about that. I enjoy discussing the bible. But this was not the proper place for apologetics. You guys should have a place to discuss your beliefs without conflicting discussion. Lesson learned on my part. I will stay in the apologetics from now on. Please accept my apology.


----------



## Artfuldodger

I'll apologize too for the drift.

The trinity is a mystery that cannot be fully comprehended.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Banjo Picker said:


> And I will ask you the same question I ask Hobbs who were the sons of God that is spoken of in the Old Testament were they God to, I know the answer but I would like to see if you know.



Please answer on the thread titled "Son vs sons of God"


----------



## Ronnie T

I dont think Ive ever heard a simple explanation of the trinity. Most times I attempt, people doubt that I believe in it.


----------



## Artfuldodger

I read this explanation from a Catholic;
Father is the first person of the Trinity. Son is the second person. Holy Spirit is the third.
Reason being, God the Father is the ultimate origin of all. God the Son is "eternally begotten" and co-eternal, but begotten nonetheless. Further, the Holy Spirit "proceeds" from the Father and Son.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

Ronnie T said:


> I dont think Ive ever heard a simple explanation of the trinity. Most times I attempt, people doubt that I believe in it.



Made me smile.  Been there.


----------



## gordon 2

Lord ministers to the faithful Hebrews-Jews=Father.
Lord ministers to the  Jews and Gentiles = Jesus.
Lord ministering to His people in the here and now=Holy Spirit.

Same Minister, different ministries.

 LOL


----------



## Vectorman

SemperFiDawg said:


> This popped into my mind yesterday during service.  (Yes it got a little boring and my mind wandered). How would you explain the Trinity in a simple manner.  The best I've ever understood it was as H2O. Meaning, whether being in vapor, ice, or liquid it's still H2O.
> 
> Just interested in some other SIMPLE visualizations.



The only simple answer here is as some others have explained, there is no simple answer. This is one of those things that requires faith in what we don't understand. 
I've heard some of the "simple" explanations and they all fall short.  ex. Water being solid, liquid, gas.... a good try but water can be one of the three at any time but cannot be all three at the same time. .....Father/Son/Husband ... I am all three at once but I cannot be all three separately at the same time that communicates with each other individually. (If you try this they will send the men with the long sleeved jacket to pick you up  )

This is one of the reasons that we shouldn't try and put God in a box of explanation. God has said very clearly that we shouldn't take a physical object and use it to explain who He is because it will fall short.


----------



## M80

Very simple from a old country preacher. 

3 separate candles burning, put the 3 candles together and they become 1 flame, pull them apart and there are still 3 candles burning.


----------



## gordon 2

In the beginning was the 2>Word, and the Word was 1>with God, and 2>the Word was God. 

3> And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. 15John bare witness of him,...

I think John's got the answer covered... and his view  would explain why Jesus was with the Father in the beginning. 

---------------
So in the beginning was the Word and God . They were two but were also one and the same as John explains. And then the Word and Jesus are two and one or the same as John explains again, only we know by now that the Word is also two both God  and the Word, therefore Jesus is God: Jesus being the Word made flesh.

So the trinity comes to us from John's view of God as being Jesus the Word (God) made flesh and this>>>>

(  John 14:16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever--)


----------

