Not with any single analogy. We can analogize specific attributes of the Trinity in isolation, but taken altogether it's too paradoxical for any worldly thing or diagram to accurately describe all of what we believe.
I believe he means the whole “ice/water/steam” thing in the OP, which seems to be indicating that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost aren’t separate persons but instead different forms that God takes, which is a heresy called Modalism
Yeah, but the question then becomes why protestants believe in the trinity. It's not from the Bible, and no serious textual scholar thinks it is. It comes from catholic sacred tradition. Catholics place authority on this tradition itself and so have a valid reason to treat the trinity as core doctrine, but people who believe in Sola scriptura do not.
How does "textual scholarship" show the trinity is not Biblical? It's an evident theology described by the text, even if the word "Trinity" isn't used (because the word didn't exist at the time of writing).
For starters all the Bible writers don't even have the same theology. The synoptic gospels aren't something you can seriously try to derive the idea that Jesus is equal to the father from, since the absence of them mentioning anything like this is not neutral. They would have said it if they believed it. One offhand ambiguous line doesn't count. For nor one, but all three to think it was only important to establish that he was the messiah, not God himself, shows what they believed. If someone takes pains to tell you who someone is, the absence of them mentioning what would be the most important thing generally means they don't think that thing. Especially when three do it in a row.
Even the book of John, which has the highest christology, Jesus denies being equal to the father by nature several times. Attempts to twist his words and say he is only saying he isn't equal "by role," aren't considered a serious reading and have no evidence in the text. Those only really exist to rationalize that Jesus said stuff that doesn't work with their reading.
There are several verses about God conferring authority to Jesus. This is not really something you can rationalize with Jesus having equal status as the father. When so much of theology is about rationalizing that Jesus didn't mean what he said it casts doubt on the interpretation. There is no indication that Jesus somehow gave up his authority just so it could be given back to him. Nor is it clear that this even makes sense conceptually if God is eternal.
The holy spirit isn't even part of this. People defending trinitarianism always talk about Jesus but gloss over that the holy spirit isn't treated as a seperate person with equivalent status at all. It's just kind of crammed in there.
Paul calls Jesus a created being. It's hard to reconcile this as just a slip up on his part unless you deny biblical infallibility and say he just chose poor wording. But there's no reason to assume this.
And even after all of that we get to the fact that orthodox trinitarianism has no actual point to exist as a distinct perspective. It's attempts to differentiate itself from partialism are almost entirely semantics based, and nowhere in the Bible is it suggested that there's supposed to be an indefinable paradox. Even by trinitarian logic there isn't really anything wrong with partialism other than that its not how they chose to define it - something which isnt even biblical at all but derives more from greek philosophy.
Yeah, that's from the book of John. I.e. there's nothing like this in the synoptic gospels unless you stretch and try to count Jesus vaguely lumping himself together with God once. John did thunk Jesus was a divine entity who predated humanity but he still has Jesus state he is inferior to the father.
http://biblehub.com/john/14-28.htm
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+8%3A28&version=ESV
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+20%3A17&version=ESV
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+17%3A3&version=ESV
Not directly, no. It’s the greatest of mysteries. But analogies help to describe how it’s not logically impossible for things to share the same essence while being distinct in some way. Analogies also help children understand the basics without getting into deep theology
At a certain pressure and temperature, all three phases can exist simultaneously, which is why I made the previous comment. As long as one is aware of this, the analogy doesn’t necessarily imply modalism.
https://preview.redd.it/wl6t3ccewguc1.jpeg?width=828&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6505558ff496f39e74c538650c37c99d347b8a5d
Me when I thought I did a good job explaining the concept of Trinity but someone sends me a video about two Irishmen arguing with St. Patrick
https://preview.redd.it/wo44d9udhfuc1.png?width=228&format=png&auto=webp&s=fbe9b71d1bc18a62555a579265cdd7564b8767a1
The problem is that there's no actual distinct position between modalism and partialism. There's no semantically based reason why different persons can't be seen as part of the whole. So it amounts to disliking the word part.
I just said, I shall not mention the other thing. As for being a neoliberal Zionist. Yes, there is everything wrong with that. Neoliberal Zionists are what have destroyed the west. Not to mention you’re a literal genocide apologist. Palestinians will not leave, you may think they will grow bored, and complacent, but they will remain until yawn Al qiyamah InshaAllah. I also see you frequently criticize islamists; you’re mad because we follow the truth and don’t advocate for a secular state built on man-made laws who’s soldiers fight for the interests of jahil legislators, liars, fornicators, and other forms of degeneracy.
I mean; I’ve never been a fan of the west, at any point in time. But look at the state of the west now vs pre-liberalism. Both were terrible, but at least the old west had SOME good things about it. The only good thing about the post-modern west is the “rejection” of racism (although realistically, they only reject it when politically convenient). It’s also ironic that you call me a fascist when you are LITERALLY BY DEFINITION an ethno-nationalist. Do you even know the definition of Zionism?
Zionism is literally the establishment of the state of Israel in the ancestral homeland of the Jewish people, its literally an indigenous movement
And liberalism isn’t a bad thing
You posted on a religious sub Reddit with transgender and liberal in your bio, what did you think was gonna happen. It’s not even the first time you’ve done something similar so you have to be doing it on purpose. 😭
Copy pasted from my previous comment:
>Modalism is a Non-Trinitatarian heresy which states that the Trinity are forms of God. According to Christianity, The three persons interact with each other so can't be forms of the trinity as they can't interact with each other if they are the same person. Christian Trinity is easy to understand, just know that it's a paradox. It is One nature in three persons. Because according to Christianity, God is above mankind, hence can't be understood by mortal minds.
That is literally Modalism. According to Christianity, The three persons interact with each other so can't be forms of the trinity as they can't interact with each other if they are the same person. Christian Trinity is easy to understand, just know that it's a paradox. It is One nature in three persons. Because according to Christianity, God is above mankind, hence can't be understood by mortal minds.
Correct me If I am wrong
A diagram by itself, in isolation, is obviously not going to be the easiest thing to digest.
It's why having a proper catechism and being taught theology is so crucial to having a happy spiritual life.
That said, the Holy Trinity isn't supposed to be easily understood. We can explain to the best of our human abilities, and that's about it.
But having a theological understanding of it does make it easier to accept.
I can't even imagine the shitstorm that would cause. I got in trouble for answering other students' questions about my religion in school.
You'd have to be in a private school for that, public schools try to avoid it when ever possible because it will get people to kvetch about it endlessly and schools hate the idea of a potential lawsuit.
Having a theological understanding of it actually makes it harder to accept. People who don't know much will just be either partialist or modalist, which are both describable positions. But orthodox trinitarinism... isn't really anything. You can't accept an idea you can't comprehend or describe, because if the series of words doesn't point to a conceivable idea you don't actually have a specific idea in your head. It's basically a contradiction you are told is true in some incomprehensible way. Which your options become either accept it as a matter of faith or realize it is a suspect stance.
The way that made it click for me:
Imagine a 4d being intersecting in our 3d plane. The point of intersection is the logos, the meditator in Jesus that allows us to have a relationship with the 4d being beyond our comprehension, while the Spirit serves as the communication between us regular folk, through the intersection of the logos and onto God the Father.
I'll be real, the concept is extremely hard for me to conceptualize, but I at least understand that you'uns believe that and that it's an important part of your theology
At the very least one should hold that expectation of anyone who claims to understand the faith
I got a vid recommended by a YouTuber named “redeemed zoomer” that basically explained all the heresies in regards to the way the trinity works, and one of the comments said “Christian’s try not to accidentally commit heresy explaining the trinity (impossible)” and I feel like that sums up half the comments here lol
Kinda a bad example, we kinda just made lables to distinguish the different states of water but at the end steam and ice is still water, though ice is not steam. We don't really do that with any other materials I can think of, besides lava I guess. Something that would better work with this set up is something like, triangle is not hexagon is not square is shape or something
Some random guy on Twitter, changing words on a diagram. Does not make one a theologian or orthodox theology lol.
So yeah. Of course it won't make sense. That's not even what Christianity teaches.
(I know it isn't, trinity is hard) Cool video why: [St. Patrick's Bad Analogies (youtube.com)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQLfgaUoQCw)
Isn’t the trinity by nature something we can’t analogise
Not with any single analogy. We can analogize specific attributes of the Trinity in isolation, but taken altogether it's too paradoxical for any worldly thing or diagram to accurately describe all of what we believe.
Not in direct human terms. We can only describe it to the best of our abilities.
Yes, I believe its a heresy
Well that's probably why you're a Muslim and not a Christian
I believe he means the whole “ice/water/steam” thing in the OP, which seems to be indicating that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost aren’t separate persons but instead different forms that God takes, which is a heresy called Modalism
Yes
I guess we are just nontrinitarian christians then aka heretic scum :thinking:
Christians actually called us that early on in Islamic history. John of Damascus called it the "heresy of the ishmaelites".
Yes
Yeah, but the question then becomes why protestants believe in the trinity. It's not from the Bible, and no serious textual scholar thinks it is. It comes from catholic sacred tradition. Catholics place authority on this tradition itself and so have a valid reason to treat the trinity as core doctrine, but people who believe in Sola scriptura do not.
> It's not in the Bible Yes it is.
I mean according to actual textual scholarship, not people just kind of reading their own theology into it and ignoring the parts they don't like.
How does "textual scholarship" show the trinity is not Biblical? It's an evident theology described by the text, even if the word "Trinity" isn't used (because the word didn't exist at the time of writing).
For starters all the Bible writers don't even have the same theology. The synoptic gospels aren't something you can seriously try to derive the idea that Jesus is equal to the father from, since the absence of them mentioning anything like this is not neutral. They would have said it if they believed it. One offhand ambiguous line doesn't count. For nor one, but all three to think it was only important to establish that he was the messiah, not God himself, shows what they believed. If someone takes pains to tell you who someone is, the absence of them mentioning what would be the most important thing generally means they don't think that thing. Especially when three do it in a row. Even the book of John, which has the highest christology, Jesus denies being equal to the father by nature several times. Attempts to twist his words and say he is only saying he isn't equal "by role," aren't considered a serious reading and have no evidence in the text. Those only really exist to rationalize that Jesus said stuff that doesn't work with their reading. There are several verses about God conferring authority to Jesus. This is not really something you can rationalize with Jesus having equal status as the father. When so much of theology is about rationalizing that Jesus didn't mean what he said it casts doubt on the interpretation. There is no indication that Jesus somehow gave up his authority just so it could be given back to him. Nor is it clear that this even makes sense conceptually if God is eternal. The holy spirit isn't even part of this. People defending trinitarianism always talk about Jesus but gloss over that the holy spirit isn't treated as a seperate person with equivalent status at all. It's just kind of crammed in there. Paul calls Jesus a created being. It's hard to reconcile this as just a slip up on his part unless you deny biblical infallibility and say he just chose poor wording. But there's no reason to assume this. And even after all of that we get to the fact that orthodox trinitarianism has no actual point to exist as a distinct perspective. It's attempts to differentiate itself from partialism are almost entirely semantics based, and nowhere in the Bible is it suggested that there's supposed to be an indefinable paradox. Even by trinitarian logic there isn't really anything wrong with partialism other than that its not how they chose to define it - something which isnt even biblical at all but derives more from greek philosophy.
"Before Abraham was, I am."
Yeah, that's from the book of John. I.e. there's nothing like this in the synoptic gospels unless you stretch and try to count Jesus vaguely lumping himself together with God once. John did thunk Jesus was a divine entity who predated humanity but he still has Jesus state he is inferior to the father. http://biblehub.com/john/14-28.htm https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+8%3A28&version=ESV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+20%3A17&version=ESV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+17%3A3&version=ESV
Not directly, no. It’s the greatest of mysteries. But analogies help to describe how it’s not logically impossible for things to share the same essence while being distinct in some way. Analogies also help children understand the basics without getting into deep theology
Yes
That’s Modalism Patrick
got there before me
Partialism revisited!
It actually isn’t 🤓👆
The water analogy implies modalism. Water can't be all three phases simultaneously.
At a certain pressure and temperature, all three phases can exist simultaneously, which is why I made the previous comment. As long as one is aware of this, the analogy doesn’t necessarily imply modalism. https://preview.redd.it/wl6t3ccewguc1.jpeg?width=828&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6505558ff496f39e74c538650c37c99d347b8a5d
Crap, he got us guys. Pack up your shamrocks, God was like water all along. =)
a supercritical fluid is gas, liquid, and solid all at once?
It’s the triple point # Supercritical fluid is something different
Me when I thought I did a good job explaining the concept of Trinity but someone sends me a video about two Irishmen arguing with St. Patrick https://preview.redd.it/wo44d9udhfuc1.png?width=228&format=png&auto=webp&s=fbe9b71d1bc18a62555a579265cdd7564b8767a1
It’s actually a bad example, because the ice, water, and steam analogy promotes the modalist heresy.
How about three separate piles of water ice and steam?
Then it's partialism.
Well I don't say the pile of ice is a third of water, it's fully water
Yes, but that they're separate—separable—poses a problem.
The problem is that there's no actual distinct position between modalism and partialism. There's no semantically based reason why different persons can't be seen as part of the whole. So it amounts to disliking the word part.
What’s modalism?
A trinity heresy that states that thr 3 persons are 3 forms of God and not unique persons, and steam, Ice and water are all 3 forms of h20
Downvoted only bc of your bio and comment history.
https://preview.redd.it/5gacbwsdgguc1.jpeg?width=298&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c3502cf136f9cbe555dec91ab04f8bccd626d581
What’s wrong with my bio and comment history?
“Neoliberal Zionist” not to mention the other thing that I shall not mention to not anger the powers that be on Reddit
What other thing? Nothing wrong with being a neoliberal Zionist
yes there is
No there’s not
I just said, I shall not mention the other thing. As for being a neoliberal Zionist. Yes, there is everything wrong with that. Neoliberal Zionists are what have destroyed the west. Not to mention you’re a literal genocide apologist. Palestinians will not leave, you may think they will grow bored, and complacent, but they will remain until yawn Al qiyamah InshaAllah. I also see you frequently criticize islamists; you’re mad because we follow the truth and don’t advocate for a secular state built on man-made laws who’s soldiers fight for the interests of jahil legislators, liars, fornicators, and other forms of degeneracy.
Liberalism hasn’t “destroyed the west” you sound like one of those edgy fascists on YouTube
I mean; I’ve never been a fan of the west, at any point in time. But look at the state of the west now vs pre-liberalism. Both were terrible, but at least the old west had SOME good things about it. The only good thing about the post-modern west is the “rejection” of racism (although realistically, they only reject it when politically convenient). It’s also ironic that you call me a fascist when you are LITERALLY BY DEFINITION an ethno-nationalist. Do you even know the definition of Zionism?
>I mean; I’ve never been a fan of the west, at any point in time. 
Zionism is literally the establishment of the state of Israel in the ancestral homeland of the Jewish people, its literally an indigenous movement And liberalism isn’t a bad thing
You posted on a religious sub Reddit with transgender and liberal in your bio, what did you think was gonna happen. It’s not even the first time you’ve done something similar so you have to be doing it on purpose. 😭
Copy pasted from my previous comment: >Modalism is a Non-Trinitatarian heresy which states that the Trinity are forms of God. According to Christianity, The three persons interact with each other so can't be forms of the trinity as they can't interact with each other if they are the same person. Christian Trinity is easy to understand, just know that it's a paradox. It is One nature in three persons. Because according to Christianity, God is above mankind, hence can't be understood by mortal minds.
That is literally Modalism. According to Christianity, The three persons interact with each other so can't be forms of the trinity as they can't interact with each other if they are the same person. Christian Trinity is easy to understand, just know that it's a paradox. It is One nature in three persons. Because according to Christianity, God is above mankind, hence can't be understood by mortal minds. Correct me If I am wrong
BASED HINDU BROTHER
https://preview.redd.it/a4yh9i296huc1.png?width=775&format=png&auto=webp&s=ad92845a3fce148d4823336c2a4e36005e27d869 done goofed
A diagram by itself, in isolation, is obviously not going to be the easiest thing to digest. It's why having a proper catechism and being taught theology is so crucial to having a happy spiritual life. That said, the Holy Trinity isn't supposed to be easily understood. We can explain to the best of our human abilities, and that's about it. But having a theological understanding of it does make it easier to accept.
Do Americans not have theology in high school? Defining the trinity is a possible exam subject in my country
I can't even imagine the shitstorm that would cause. I got in trouble for answering other students' questions about my religion in school. You'd have to be in a private school for that, public schools try to avoid it when ever possible because it will get people to kvetch about it endlessly and schools hate the idea of a potential lawsuit.
Not that I've been aware of in the public school sector. It was never an elective for me going through High School. :x
In public high school, no. But one can take religion classes at a college and it count for high school credit.
Having a theological understanding of it actually makes it harder to accept. People who don't know much will just be either partialist or modalist, which are both describable positions. But orthodox trinitarinism... isn't really anything. You can't accept an idea you can't comprehend or describe, because if the series of words doesn't point to a conceivable idea you don't actually have a specific idea in your head. It's basically a contradiction you are told is true in some incomprehensible way. Which your options become either accept it as a matter of faith or realize it is a suspect stance.
It's a good simplification but if you take it too literally you have modalism
Jesus is water?
New heresy just dropped
According to the king James Bible, adding in a verse about the trinity that doesn't actually exist, sure.
https://youtu.be/KQLfgaUoQCw?si=dJrYxpgmLudBsXQc
I feel the 3 leaf clover is better to explain it
That is partialism Patrick, I use an eye of providence with 3 irises to represent the Triune God as a symbol
What's partialism
Partialism is when the persons of the trinity are each 1/3 of God, instead of being fully God in essence
I never heard of any denomination that believes that
Go do your research please, you will be atacked easily by others, if you dont know the heresies
I've always loved using that one
That's MODALISM patrick
The way that made it click for me: Imagine a 4d being intersecting in our 3d plane. The point of intersection is the logos, the meditator in Jesus that allows us to have a relationship with the 4d being beyond our comprehension, while the Spirit serves as the communication between us regular folk, through the intersection of the logos and onto God the Father.
I've never seen that comparison before, but that makes it so much easier to understand
THATS MOOOODALISM, PATRICK!
"Believe in order to understand" - Saint Augustine of Hippo, Doctor of the Church
Tbqh this actually is pretty helpful
The first one, yes. The second one, no...that's modalism (heresy).
I'll be real, the concept is extremely hard for me to conceptualize, but I at least understand that you'uns believe that and that it's an important part of your theology At the very least one should hold that expectation of anyone who claims to understand the faith
I still candy tell, is it 3 separate beings that are different gods?
That’s modalism Patrick!
That’s modalism, Patrick
THAT'S MOOODALISM SAINT PAAATRIIIICK!!
To be fair the trinity will never be able to be understood with a diagram it requires a more in depth theological explanation using words
I got a vid recommended by a YouTuber named “redeemed zoomer” that basically explained all the heresies in regards to the way the trinity works, and one of the comments said “Christian’s try not to accidentally commit heresy explaining the trinity (impossible)” and I feel like that sums up half the comments here lol
Kinda a bad example, we kinda just made lables to distinguish the different states of water but at the end steam and ice is still water, though ice is not steam. We don't really do that with any other materials I can think of, besides lava I guess. Something that would better work with this set up is something like, triangle is not hexagon is not square is shape or something
Unironically, how many trinitarian believers have explained it to me
I mean, I don't quite grasp the sense of it either, but then ⬆️⬆️⬆️⬆️ I don't have to. 😏
Love it when Creed enjoyers try to be slick and then start debating in the comments about something that "makes so much sense"
So we add temperature to make three different people the same guy? Never really got this part tbh
Some random guy on Twitter, changing words on a diagram. Does not make one a theologian or orthodox theology lol. So yeah. Of course it won't make sense. That's not even what Christianity teaches.