Board index ‹ The Trinity

[Nicole 2020]

Hello I’m having trouble grasping the concept of the holy trinity. I understand that Jesus died for our sins, hence a savior, as well as the fact that he’s the son of God. I just can’t seem to understand how Jesus and God can be coequal. Can someone explain to me how it’s possible? Thank you in advance!!

[jimwalton]

In the Bible, the Trinity distinguishes between the principle of divine action and the subject of divine action. The principle of all divine action is the one undivided divine essence, but the subject of divine action is either Father, Son, or Holy Spirit. The Father can send the Son according to his power, and the Son can be incarnated according to his nature without dividing the divine essence.

I know it's a difficult concept to understand, but there are analogies that make sense of it and help us to understand. Suppose I write a book, and I put myself in it. The character "me" says what I would say and does what I would do. It's ME in the book. He's exactly as I am. Now, is the character in the book different from the me outside of the book? Of course he is. But is it me? Of course it is. He's all me, but he's all a separate character. I can easily be both the author and a character without compromising either.

We see examples in nature and science. All physical reality has a dual nature. Mass and energy are in principle inter-convertible, through nuclear fission or fusion reactions. E = mc^2. We can, therefore, speak of the universe as a "space-light-time" universe. It is significant that this motion of light is famous for its mysterious and paradoxical complementarity. It has the characteristics of both waves and particles, and yet it definitely behaves as a wave motion under some conditions and as a particle motion under others. This duality applies both in radiations of electro-magnetic energy and in the atomic structure of matter, in which the orbiting electron likewise behaves both as a particle and as a wave. The two disciplines of modern physics known as quantum mechanics and wave mechanics have been developed from these two concepts.

There are several principles from quantum mechanics that may show us some analogies. The first is called superposition, where subatomic particles are able to exist in two states simultaneously. The second is that of nonlocality and entanglement. The principle here is that objects in far reaches of the universe seem to “know” about each other’s states, and separate particles can behave as a single entity. These may be possible analogies, if that helps.

For another potential scientific "validation" of such possibilities, in 2017 a group of quantum scientists (University of Science and Technology of China in Shanghai) successfully teleported a photon from earth to a satellite in orbit. It's called quantum entanglement. As far as our discussion here, quantum entanglement means that the two quantum objects share a wave function and share the same identity, even when separated. What happens to one happens to the other—wherever it exists. They are more than identical twins, the article said, "the two are one and the same." Apparently, according to the article, when they interact with matter on Earth they lose certain aspects of entanglement, but in the vacuum of space, they can extend infinitely (eternally). It's just interesting.

People say that the Trinity is a contradiction, but this occurred to me the other day: Mathematicians tell us that two parallel lines actually meet at infinity. Somehow we accept that as true, even though it seems self-contradictory. If we accept it in geometry, can we also accept it in theology?

[Trepak]

> People say that the Trinity is a contradiction, but this occurred to me the other day: Mathematicians tell us that two parallel lines actually meet at infinity. Somehow we accept that as true, even though it seems self-contradictory. If we accept it in geometry, can we also accept it in theology?

Two parallel lines don't meet in Euclidean geometry. Parallel lines meeting at infinity is a concept in non-Euclidean geometry. There isn't a contradiction because they are two different frameworks.

Quantum superposition isn't a contradiction because the particles are entangled and act as one. If they were entangled and were different types of particles or weren't behaving the same while still entangled, it would be closer to the analogy of the contradiction of the holy Trinity.

[jimwalton]

> There isn't a contradiction because they are two different frameworks

My point is the same. There are situations in which we accept seemingly contradictory realities as truth.

> Quantum superposition

It's just an analogy that can't be pressed too hard. (No analogy can be pressed too hard; they're just analogies to lead to understanding, not complete unflawed reflections of the original subject.) The idea is, as Paul Dirac explains, "It requires us to assume that between these states there exist peculiar relationships such that whenever the system is definitely in one state we can consider it as being partly in each of two or more other states."

It's just an interesting analogy, and possibly helps us understanding how the Trinity is possible without being logically contradictory.

[Trepak]

To explain how its possible without being logically contradictory you'd have to explain if different parts of the Trinity can be in disagreement and how. You'd have to explain if different parts of the Trinity can change over time or if they are all atemporal. It's not inconceivable for some being to exist in multiple forms at the same time as we accept this in science fiction movies all the time. We would question the movie, however, if two of the "same" being disagreed with each other or experienced time differently unlike the hive-minds like the Borg from Star Trek or Unity from Rick and Morty.

[jimwalton]

> To explain how its possible without being logically contradictory you'd have to explain if different parts of the Trinity can be in disagreement and how.

They can't possibly be in disagreement because the three Persons are of one essence, and therefore share a common mind, so to speak. It would be self-contradictory to perceive of God's mind as in disagreement with itself.

> You'd have to explain if different parts of the Trinity can change over time or if they are all atemporal.

The Godhead is eternal, and does not change in His essence, character, or attributes. And yet the Son in His incarnation "grew in wisdom." It's fair to say that Jesus could grow in wisdom in the sense that he was experiencing new things as a human: temptation, learning obedience, praying with other people, rejection even as a kid, human laughter. These kinds of experiences don't mean he wasn't omniscient, but that he was experiencing life as a human for the first time. It was actually part of the point of the incarnation.
But it also says he grew in wisdom. In the biblical sense, wisdom is a moral as well as intellectual quality, and mostly related to harnessing one’s intelligence to a right end, always choosing the best and highest goal, acting in accord with God’s will, and living a totally righteous life. In this sense it’s easy to apply this word to Jesus who, as a growing human, would apply his intelligence and actions to the most proper end.

Another verse is Phil. 2.7, where it says Jesus "emptied himself" when he became incarnated. That has to be interpreted, but it's generally understood to mean that he voluntarily set aside the prerogatives of deity (not the nature of deity). He laid aside his divine appearance (the form of God); he did not divest himself of his divine nature. He took the form of a servant. There is no implication here that in coming to earth he became less than divine or couldn’t do things that he had previously been able to do, but that he was choosing NOT to do them—he set aside that entitlement.

> It's not inconceivable for some being to exist in multiple forms at the same time as we accept this in science fiction movies all the time.

And yet geometry and quantum physics are not science fiction. We have real-life examples from math and science of seeming contradictions that we accept.

[Trepak]

> ..the three Persons are of one essence, and therefore share a common mind..

No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. (Matt. 24:36)

> We have real-life examples from math and science of seeming contradictions that we accept.

Quantum entanglement is a force we don't fully understand, not a contradiction. A scientific misconception isn't analogous to a logical contradiction.

[jimwalton]

> No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. (Matt. 24:36)

You have apparently looked at the text superficially but not to understand it—always a recipe for misunderstanding.

It’s at the very least obvious that the writers of the Gospels don't write to white wash Jesus into a deity that he never claimed to be! A verse like this shows us how truthful, accurate, and writing with integrity the Gospel writers aimed to be. In addition, as Zacharias says, "If Jesus were a self-aggrandizing charlatan, why would he have answered the question that way? He wouldn't have. He would have answered it by saying, 'I know the date, but I’m not going to tell you.' "

To claim that this text shows that Jesus doesn't share a common mind with the Father is like one who misses the forest by staring at one tree. In doing so, you've missed what Jesus talking about and what He is really saying.

Jesus's point in the section is that people should live lives of alertness and obedience because the hour of His return is not able to be predicted by calculation and reason. This is his point: "Your priority as Christians is to be faithful and holy. Dwell on that." It is in that light that He claims that only the Father knows. His purpose is not to admit ignorance, that He is not omniscient, or that He doesn't share the Father's mind, but instead to indicate that vigilance, not calculation, is what is being required of them. Other events, such as the destruction of Jerusalem, will be so obvious that they can be clearly foreseen so much so that people will have time to runaway to escape the devastation. Jesus's return, however, will not be like that. It will catch people off-guard, no matter how diligently they try to do the math and study the Scriptures to discern the date of His return.

He is also making a statement that some jobs belong to the Father alone. The Father was the creator, and Jesus was the agent of that creation. It was the Father who sent the Son to the cross—granted, by the Son's cooperation. It is also the Father's "job" to send Jesus back to Earth (Acts 1.7), and Jesus will be the agent of that return (obviously). This is what Jesus is saying, not that He lacks omniscience or doesn't share the Father's mind. In a similar sense, it is not Jesus’s place to grant who will sit on His right and left—that is the Father’s job (Mk. 10.40). Jesus is God and is therefore omniscient; He cannot cease to be omniscient and remain God any more than a square can cease to have four sides and remain a square.

> Quantum entanglement is a force we don't fully understand, not a contradiction.

Excellent point. The Trinity, in like manner, is a reality we don't fully understand. It is not a contradiction.

[Trepak]

> You have apparently looked at the text superficially but not to understand it—always a recipe for misunderstanding.

Don't assume that I don't understand what I don't agree with.

The text clearly says "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."

There isn't a possibility of contradiction if words have no meaning and this clearly says the Son doesn't know

[jimwalton]

> Don't assume that I don't understand what I don't agree with.

I didn't assume it at all. I went by the evidence. You wouldn't have quoted it if you understood it, because it doesn't support your point. If you remove it from its context and just look at the words, it does, and that was the root problem. You can't legitimately do that and claim that it supports your point.

> The text clearly says "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."

Yes it does, but the words are in a context. I can say to a friend when they tell me good news, "Oh, shut up," and I can say to an antagonist when they are verbally abusing me, "Oh, shut up," and you better not just read what the words say for understanding. You better know the context to hear that the former is a statement of affirmation and love and the latter is a statement of anger and rebuke. Same words though. "The text clearly says" doesn't take you anywhere.

Jesus's point is alertness.

* 4: Watch out
* 15: So when you see...then let (16, 17, 18...)
* 23: Don't believe it!
* 24: Don't believe it!
* 42: Keep watch.
* 43: Keep watch
* 44: You must be ready.
* 45-51: The faithful and wise servant is the one who lives circumspectly and watchful

Watch the signs. Be alert. Learn the lesson of the fig tree (32): there are signs about what is about to happen. Verse 33: "Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door."

This is the point: You will not be able to figure out the timing of Christ's return by doing the math, analyzing the texts, and studying current events. It's not meant for you to figure it out, so don't try. The point is: Be Faithful.

Even in the very next verse (Matt. 24.37), he mentions that though the signs were evident, people were living in profligacy. Instead, live in holiness. That's his point. He's not making a statement about his ignorance, but instead about people's preparedness. Watch the signs and live in expectancy, but don't waste your time trying to figure out the exact timing of this, because you'll fail. That's all He's talking about.

A specific outline of the future would be a hindrance, not a help. Certain signs have been given, but not for the purpose of making detailed, sequential predictions. That's all this is about.

> There isn't a possibility of contradiction if words have no meaning and this clearly says the Son doesn't know.

The words have meaning, all right. There is no communication otherwise. But if I explain it again, I'll just be repeating myself. Jesus knew the exact timing, and we can tell this by looking at the whole:

• He knew the signs to tell them about (vv. 4-8), and that these were only the beginning, not the whole of it.
• He knew the sequence of events that would unfold (vv. 9-14).
• He knew the climaxing blasphemy (15)
• He knew the effect of the climaxing blasphemy and what the people should do (16-22ff.)
• He knew how long or short the days would be until the coming (23)
• He knew there would be many false teachers with inadequate knowledge and false predictions (23-26)
• He knew the sudden, plain, and unmistakable timing of His return (27)
• He knows the distress that will accompany his return (28-31)
• He tells them even when they will be right at the door (32-33), because he knows when that is.
• He knows his words are truth (35)

So we can't conclude that He gets to v. 36 and disavows any knowledge of the timing. You have to look at the whole picture. You can't cherry pick one sentence and say, "See! The Son doesn't know."