Greek Philosophy's Influence on the Trinity Doctrine

Is God a Trinity? ^ | Various | Various

[DouglasKC]

Greek Philosophy's Influence on the Trinity Doctrine

Many historians and religious scholars, some quoted in this publication, attest to the influence of Greek or Platonic philosophy in the development and acceptance of the Trinity doctrine in the fourth century. But what did such philosophy entail, and how did it come to affect the doctrine of the Trinity?

To briefly summarize what was pertinent, we start with mention of the famous Greek philosopher Plato (ca. 429-347 B.C.). He believed in a divine triad of "God, the ideas, [and] the World-Spirit," though he "nowhere explained or harmonized this triad" (Charles Bigg, Christian Platonists of Alexandria, 1886, p. 249). Later Greek thinkers refined Plato's concepts into what they referred to as three "substances"—the supreme God or "the One," from which came "mind" or "thought" and a "spirit" or "soul." In their thinking, all were different divine "substances" or aspects of the same God. Another way of expressing this was as "good," the personification of that good, and the agent by which that good is carried out. Again, these were different divine aspects of that same supreme good—distinct and yet unified as one.

Such metaphysical thinking was common among the intelligentsia of the Greek world and carried over into the thinking of the Roman world of the New Testament period and succeeding centuries. As the last of the apostles began to die off, some of this metaphysical thinking began to affect and infiltrate the early Church—primarily through those who had already begun to compromise with paganism.

As Bible scholars John McClintock and James Strong explain: "Towards the end of the 1st century, and during the 2d, many learned men came over both from Judaism and paganism to Christianity. These brought with them into the Christian schools of theology their Platonic ideas and phraseology" ( Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, 1891, Vol. 10, "Trinity," p. 553).

The true Church largely resisted such infiltration and held firm to the teaching of the apostles, drawing their doctrine from the writings of the apostles and "the Holy Scriptures [the books of the Old Testament] which are able to make you wise for salvation" (2 Timothy 3:15 ).

Two distinct threads of Christianity split and developed separately—one true to the plain and simple teachings of the Bible and the other increasingly compromised with pagan thought and practices adopted from the Greco-Roman world.

Thus, as debate swelled over the nature of God in the fourth century leading to the Councils of Nicaea and Constantinople, it was no longer a debate between biblical truth and error. Both sides in the debate had been seriously compromised by their acceptance of unbiblical philosophical ideas.

Many of the church leaders who formulated the doctrine of the Trinity were steeped in Greek and Platonic philosophy, and this influenced their religious views and teaching. The language they used in describing and defining the Trinity is, in fact, taken directly from Platonic and Greek philosophy. The word trinity itself is neither biblical nor Christian. Rather, the Platonic term trias, from the word for three, was Latinized as trinitas— the latter giving us the English word trinity.

"The Alexandria catechetical school, which revered Clement of Alexandria and Origen, the greatest theologian of the Greek Church, as its heads, applied the allegorical method to the explanation of Scripture. Its thought was influenced by Plato: its strong point was [pagan] theological speculations. Athanasius and the three Cappadocians [the men whose Trinitarian views were adopted by the Catholic Church at the Councils of Nicaea and Constantinople] had been included among its members" (Hubert Jedin, Ecumenical Councils of the Catholic Church: an Historical Outline, 1960, p. 28).

"The doctrines of the Logos [i.e., the "Word," a designation for Christ in John 1] and the Trinity received their shape from Greek Fathers, who . . . were much influenced, directly or indirectly, by the Platonic philosophy . . . That errors and corruptions crept into the Church from this source can not be denied" ( The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Samuel Macauley Jackson, editor, 1911, Vol. 9, p. 91).

The preface to historian Edward Gibbons' History of Christianity sums up the Greek influence on the adoption of the Trinity doctrine by stating: "If Paganism was conquered by Christianity, it is equally true that Christianity was corrupted by Paganism. The pure Deism [basic religion, in this context] of the first Christians . . . was changed, by the Church of Rome, into the incomprehensible dogma of the trinity. Many of the pagan tenets, invented by the Egyptians and idealized by Plato, were retained as being worthy of belief" (1883, p. xvi). (See "How Ancient Trinitarian Gods Influenced Adoption of the Trinity," beginning on page 18.)

The link between Plato's teachings and the Trinity as adopted by the Catholic Church centuries later is so strong that Edward Gibbon, in his masterwork The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, referred to Plato as "the Athenian sage, who had thus marvelously anticipated one of the most surprising discoveries of the Christian revelation" —the Trinity (1890, Vol. 1, p. 574).

Thus we see that the doctrine of the Trinity owes far less to the Bible than it does to the metaphysical speculations of Plato and other pagan Greek philosophers. No wonder the apostle Paul warns us in Colossians 2:8 (New International Version) to beware of "hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ"!

[Cronos]

houghton: The doctrine of the Trinity DEFIES Greek philosophy, precisely the opposite of capitulatig to Greek philosophy.

Jesus himself speaks to the Father as another Person and makes clear his own equality with the Father. He then explicitly speaks about the Father (and himself) sending the Spirit who will do X and Y, in other words, another Person.

Anti-trinitarianism gets recycled every two or three centuries by some new movement that tries to reinvent the wheel.

well said

[roamer_1]

Because philosophy, ergo philosophy? Is that the thing, Dawg? I think I will disagree.

I think men philosophize, well or poorly. We wonder, we are made to wonder and to try to explain what a "thing" is, what we mean by "cause." We ask, "What do you mean by that?" We sort things out.

But then we come to a point wherein the meter to measure such a thing must be invented... How does one define 'well or poorly'? By what standard? And within that, Only 'well' OR 'poorly'? Can it be so truly binary? Is there only 'value' or not?

And finally, is there no point at where man's reason must inevitably fail? Is there something too big for man to define or even begin to comprehend? Where is that high-water mark?

Informed by Scripture, for example by Thomas's calling IHS, "My Lord and my God," and by the First Commandment, we wonder how Jesus can be God and yet there is One God, whether and how we can say, "God suffered and died," How we can talk about IHS' being tempted.

So one MUST devise an answer, even if it is not proven? Are we not supposed to 'prove all things'?

[MEGoody]

Two distinct threads of Christianity split and developed separately—one true to the plain and simple teachings of the Bible and the other increasingly compromised with pagan thought and practices adopted from the Greco-Roman world.

I don't see how one could believe the bible does NOT teach the concept of the trinity.

[MEGoody]

I don't think that's accurate else why would our current understanding of the trinity have taken so long to develop and be finalized? it took over 300 years after the death of Christ to develop it...

John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God."

It may have taken 300 years to form a formal doctrine, but the gospel of John (and other books of the New Testament) have been teaching it all along.

It is interesting to note that the writings we now know as the New Testament weren't formalized as "scripture" until about 300 years after the death of Christ either. Would you also say, then, that since it took 300 years to formalize, the selection of books included is somehow in error?

[dartuser]

If this is the group you are talking about, whats left is led by Ron Weinland ... this is the man that claimed that Jesus was coming back on May 21st, 2012 ... Pentecost 2012.

When He didn't, he made up all this stuff about how God then revealed to Him the TRUE true meaning of certain Biblical texts on the second coming ... and that His actual coming is now THIS year.

They are a cult ... Weinland claims HE is one of the two witnesses in Rev. 11.

[fso301]

For the simple reason that Scripture never says we can ONLY use scripture.

And that's fine but if you rely on something other than scripture, which is generally more reliable, the opinion of an 18th century historian unversed in biblical scholarship or biblical scholars?

[Colofornian]

Now on to the trinity. Number one, despite the protests on this thread and other threads it's clear that it's a late addition to Christianity. That alone should make it suspect...it's non-biblical in origin.

#1: The Trinity is taught in the New Testament (written all in that first century);

#2: The early church fathers taught it in the first, second, third, etc. centuries.

#3: Just because some of the 4th century councils addressed the Trinity in response to heresies that cropped up doesn't = "add-on" doctrine.

I mean, what I said above about the Trinity could be also said about the canonization of the Bible:

#1: The inspiration of NT content is taught in the New Testament (written all in that first century);

#2: The early church fathers taught that various NT gospels & epistles were inspired in the first, second, third, etc. centuries.

#3: Just because a 4th century council addressed the Biblical canon in response to competing claims of other works doesn't = these books were suddenly -- and with a degree of so-called tardiness -- recognized as having been inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Those who make these claims haven't studied the NT well enough; what the early church fathers wrote about both the Trinity and the Bible; etc.

Both are parallel considerations...and anybody making the claim that the Trinity is a late "add-on" is likewise making a claim that most Christian teachings and the Bible itself is a late "add-on" as well.

[Mad Dawg]

Well, you're doing it right there! :-)
Asking about the limits of reason is a philosophical exercise.

I think we humans just make statements about what thought, knowledge, cause, and justice are, and then we explore those statements.

AND I think it's a good thing to do. For example, (WAY oversimplified!) do we have too know something to love it, or love it to know it? However you answer (I use the Gospel according to Certs: Wait! You're BOTH right!) how does it related to knowledge of God, which is a gift and grace?

If asking a question like that doesn't spur you to prayer, I don't know what would! But it would also help structure and inform a conversation with people who think, and I quote (while throwing up a little in my mouth), "Love is a special way of feeling."

So I think we DO philosophize (wait, I said that,) just as we eat and make love. And in all three exercises it's best to do them with attention, enjoyment, skill, gratitude, and love.

I think the metric is coherence.

I was speaking loosely but, yes, I think one cannot do it both well and poorly at the same time and in the same respect.

And finally, is there no point at where man's reason must inevitably fail? Is there something too big for man to define or even begin to comprehend?

Of COURSE there are things too great to comprehend, things before which reason will fail. I am not coming down against revelation or against the need for revelation. I LOVE it when my reason is overmastered!

We don't even have to look for great big things. I think sexuality in rational animals is too much for us. There are reasonable social arguments against homosexual marriage and polygamy, but I think in the relationship between husband and wife one has to appeal to revelation.

And while I'm a convinced Trinitarian (and my Christology is, or tries to be, Chalcedonian) I am aware that the Nicene Formulation confronts us with a mystery much bigger than the idea. In fact I think both Nicea and Chalcedon give us principles for theological investigation(and more) but they are in a certain sense like being hit in the face with a cold, wet towel.

In passing, I know the whole Catholic thing about the Sacred Heart is a problem in lots of ways for others. But at its heart (yuk, yuk) it is about the meaning of Chalcedonian Christology: In Christ God loves us as he always has but also with a human heart. In the Resurrected Christ, he loves us with a resurrected Human Heart! I think that's an awesome idea!

And that idea, which arises from theological speculation and inquiry leads to a sweet and grateful devotion and prayer. I think that's a good thing.

Okay, back to my cave.....

[sasportas]

Much said here about Platonic influence on the development of the Trinity, much said about the familial understanding of the Godhead, yet I fail to see what all the fuss is supposed to be about. Except for the Holy Spirit, I don’t see that much difference between Binitarians and Trinitarians.

Oneness Pentecostals, on the other hand, while agreeing about Platonic influence on the development of the Trinity, and the familial, they, however, differ at the most basic level the Biniarian view of Father and Son. They see it vertically.

They see Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as familial. In this way, God the Father from the beginning predestinated the Son, the firstoborn Son of His family. He predtinated the Sonship, in other words.

The Son the firstborn of many brethren, Rom. 8:29. The “brethren” becoming sons by means of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. As the Son was born of the Spirit, Matt. 1:18, likewise God the Father’s extended family...also born of the Spirit. God the Father IS Spirit, John 4:23,24, not an old grey bearded man.

The Son is the visible image of the invisible God the Father, Col. 1:15. Having no human father, the Son is the only begotten Son, John 1:16, whereas the extended sonship, the extended family, born of the same Spirit and Father, yet, due to the fact that they have human fathers, are adopted sons.

Oneness Pentecostals have a vertical view, the one God (the Father) in the Son, the head of His family, the same one God in his extended family:

“One God and Father, who is above all, through all, and IN YOU ALL,” Eph. 4:6.

The way Trinitarians and Binitarians see it is very different. (Though the latter claim a familial view). They both see Father, Son, and Holy Spirit horizontally, not vertically. Separate and distinct collateral and coequal divine “Persons” alongside each other (horizontal).

Though the Binitarians differ from the Trinitarians on the Holy Spirit, their horizontal view of Father and Son is the same as the Trinitarians.

[Natural Law]

In reading this thread the one thing that is apparent is that most of the people here should spend more time talking with God than talking about God because they sure aren't spending much time learning much about Him.

It is surprising that within all of the to and fro there has been no discussion of the concepts of Appropriation and Perichoresis that are critical in understanding and reconciling God's one-ness with three distinct hypostases. I suppose this is in part because of the superficial nature believing that everything one needs to know about God and the understanding of His plan can be found exclusively within the truncated Bible of the Reformation applying only those thoughts that originate within ourselves. But that violates the Greatest commandment to love God with all of our hearts, all of our minds, and all of our souls.

Once the Trinity us better understood it becomes obvious that in His plan for Redemption we cannot appropriate for ourselves the criteria for good and evil and what is true and what is false. When we do those things we appropriate to ourselves the Divine Life rather than receiving it. The Divine Life is a gift from God, not a right of inheritance or a wage for sitting in the right pew. Understanding the Trinity, moves us to a closer and more dependent relationship with the Logos.

Peace be with you

[stfassisi]

Dear DKC,

These type of articles are from rank modern scholarship.

History has shown the early Church vehemently opposed much Platonic philosophy

Perhaps this might help you to understand
http://www.clarion-journal.com/files/platon.pdf

I will try on dig up some of my old information for you on this topic as well when I get the chance

I wish you a Blessed Day!

[DouglasKC]

John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God." It may have taken 300 years to form a formal doctrine, but the gospel of John (and other books of the New Testament) have been teaching it all along.

You're rehashing a bunch of stuff that's already been hashed out. The issue is that of the holy spirit, whether it is part of the Godhead in heaven...scripture says "no" though some think otherwise.

[Mad Dawg]

Thanks for this clear introduction.

We Nicene types often use “Greater than” and “less than” language. “In such-and-such a respect the Father is greater than the Son, but in so-and-so aa respect the Son is equal to the Father.”

If you were to adopt that sort of usage, how would what you said play out?

[DouglasKC]

#1: The Trinity is taught in the New Testament (written all in that first century);

Not even close!

Let's start with what Jesus taught:

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

No entity called "the holy spirit" is called or listed as "God". A following verse makes it clear who "God" is:

Joh 1:14 And the Word became 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.

Father and son.

Let's look at the words of Jesus:

Joh 10:30 I and My Father are one."

Here was a prime opportunity to teach. Yet Jesus failed to mention that an entity called "the holy spirit" was one with them also.

Mat 11:27 All things have been delivered to Me by My Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.

Wait...wouldn't that "person" named "the holy spirit" KNOW the son and the father also? Again, why does Jesus NOT mention this "person"?

Joh_20:17 Jesus said to her, "Do not cling to Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, 'I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God.' "

No mention of the holy spirit being another part of "God".

Rev_3:5 He who overcomes shall be clothed in white garments, and I will not blot out his name from the Book of Life; but I will confess his name before My Father and before His angels.

What? He will confess our names before the FATHER and his ANGELS but NOT a person called "the holy spirit". What gives?? The angels are more important than this supposed 3rd person in the Godhead? Amazing.

There are DOZENS of more scriptures where Jesus describes the relationship, in heaven, between he and the father. But in all those he never mentions the same type of relationship with a person named "the holy spirit".

Mat 10:32 "Therefore whoever confesses Me before men, him I will also confess before My Father who is in heaven.
Mat 10:33 But whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My Father who is in heaven.

Whoops...Jesus forgot to tell us about the "person" named the holy spirit in heaven again!

How about John?

2Jn 1:3 Grace, mercy, and peace will be with you from God the Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love.

No greetings from the holy spirit??

How about Paul? In every letter that Paul wrote he acknowledged two persons, the father and Christ:

Rom_1:7 To all who are in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

1Co_1:3 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

2Co_1:2 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Eph_1:2 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Php_1:2 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Col_1:2 To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ who are in Colosse: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

1Th_1:1 Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

2Th_1:1 Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians in God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ:

2Th_1:2 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

1Ti_1:2 To Timothy, a true son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.

Phm_1:3 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

IF the holy spirit is a co-equal member of the Godhead then why does Paul not show the proper respect and include it in his greetings?

Well all these people are rude. I'm sure that if we can look into the Godhead in heaven we'll see this person called "the holy spirit"...right?

Dan 7:13 "I was watching in the night visions, And behold, One like the Son of Man, Coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days, And they brought Him near before Him.
Dan 7:14 Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, That all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, Which shall not pass away, And His kingdom the one Which shall not be destroyed.

Silly Daniel... he doesn't mention the holy spirit being up there in heaven with the father and son.

Well let's look at the Godhead again:

Rev_22:1 And he showed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding from the throne of God and of the Lamb

Wait...no throne for the person "holy spirit"...the separate and co-equal "holy spirit" gets NO THRONE???? How can that be?

Rev_22:3 And there shall be no more curse, but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it, and His servants shall serve Him.

There it is again..stupid bible forgot to give a throne to the separate and co-equal holy spirit person.

No, scriptural evidence is clear. The holy spirit is never given the status of the father or the son, not even by the father or the son. I've literally only scratched the surface of the scriptures that show this time after time after time.

And that's not to mention the physical evidence:

Rom 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,

What "things made" could show the structure of Godhead?

How about...people? After all we're made in the image of God...right?

Two sexes, man and woman.

We all have: 2 eyes. 2 ears. 2 hands. 2 ears. 2 lungs. 2 breasts. 2 testicles (men). 2 ovaries (women). 2 kidneys. 2 legs. 2 arms. 2 legs. 2 brain halves. 2 nostrils. 2 lips. Our bodies SCREAM two.

Two are joined in marriage. Two become one:

Mat_19:5 and said, 'FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH' ?
Mat_19:6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate."

No, it's overwhelmingly, absolutely two, not three.

[stfassisi]

Two are joined in marriage. Two become one...No, it's overwhelmingly, absolutely two, not three.

Perhaps try looking at it this way,sear friend

As the late Bishop Sheen Wrote about love being Triune

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2463497/posts

Excerpts... The love of husband and wife is perfected as it becomes triune; now there is the lover, the beloved, and love--the love being something distinct from both, and yet in both. If there is only the mine and thine, there is impenetrability and separateness. Not until there is a third acting element, as the soil in which the two vines intertwine, is there oneness. Then is the impotence of the I to completely possess the Thou overcome in the realization that there is a bond outside pulling them together, hovering over them as the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary, turning the I and Thou into a We. It is this that lovers mean when, without knowing it, they speak of "our love" as something distinct from each.

Without a sense of Absolute Love, which is stronger than the independent love of each for the other, there is a false duality which ends in the absorption of the I into the Thou or the Thou into the I. In divorce cases, this is called "mental torture" or "domination." Really, it is egocentricity, in which one ego loves itself in the other ego. The I is projected into the Thou and is loved in the Thou. The Thou is not really loved as a person; it is only used as a means to the pleasure of the I. As soon as the other ceases to exhilarate, the so-called love ceases. There is nothing left to hold such a couple together, because there is no third term. There may be idolatry when there are only two, but after a while the "goddess" or the "god" turns out to be of tin. There is a world of difference between loving self in another self, and giving both self and the other self to the Third Who will keep both in undying love. Without the Love of God, there is danger of love dying of its own too-much; but when each loves the Flame of Love--over and above their two individual sparks which have come from the Flame--then there is not absorption but communion. Then the love of the other becomes a proof that he loves God, for the other is seen in God and cannot be loved apart from Him.

It takes three to make love. What binds lover and beloved together on earth is an ideal outside both. As it is impossible to have rain without the clouds, so it is impossible to understand love without God. In the Old Testament, God is defined as a Being Whose Nature it is to exist: "I am Who am." In the New Testament, God is defined as Love: "God is Love." That is why the basis of all Philosophy is Existence, and the basis of all Theology is Charity, or love.

If we would seek out the mystery of why love has a triune character and implies lover, beloved, and love, we must mount to God Himself. Love is Triune in God because in Him there are three Persons and in the one Divine Nature! Love has this triple character because it is a reflection of the Love of God, in Whom there are three Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Trinity is the answer to the questions of Plato. If there is only one God, what does He think about? He thinks an eternal thought: His Eternal Word, or Son. If there is only one God, whom does He love? He loves His Son, and that mutual love is the Holy Spirit. The great philosopher was fumbling about for the mystery of the Trinity, for his noble mind seemed in some small way to suspect that an infinite being must have relations of thought and love, and that God cannot be conceived without thought and love. But it was not until the Word became Incarnate that man knew the secret of those relations and the inner life of God, for it was Jesus Christ, the Son of God, Who revealed to us the inmost life of God.

It is that mystery of the Trinity which gives the answer to those who have pictured God as an egotist God sitting in solitary splendor before the world began, for the Trinity is a revelation that before creation God enjoyed the infinite communion with Truth and the embrace of infinite Love, and hence had no need ever to go outside of Himself in search for happiness. The greatest wonder of all is that, being perfect and enjoying perfect happiness, He ever should have made a world. And if He did make a world, He could only have had one motive for making it. It could not add to His perfection; it could not add to His Truth; it could not increase His Happiness. He made a world only because He loved, and love tends to diffuse itself to others.

[Colofornian]

No entity called "the holy spirit" is called or listed as "God"

ACTS 5:

3 Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have

lied to the Holy Spirit

and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4 Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing?

You have not lied just to human beings but to God.”

What? Do you just ignore Acts 5:3-5?

How can you lie to an impersonal force like the wind?

Lying to the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:3) IS lying to God (Acts 5:5)

The Holy Spirit is Omniscient (1 Cor. 2:11);
He is eternal (Hebrews 9:14)
He is co-Creator (Psalm 104:30; Job 26:13; Gen. 1:2)
He is omnipresent (Ps. 139:7-10)
He is one Person within the divine Trinity (2 Cor. 13:14; Matt. 28:19-20)

And note that Jesus, when referencing baptizing in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit -- says NAME (singular)...not "names" (plural)...

He shares the same Name identity -- per Jesus.

(If you don't like that, take it up with THE Son of God)

[DouglasKC]

Thank you...I love that analogy and I completely agree that what binds the father and the son perfectly together is perfect love. Love is the essence of God and we seem to be in agreement on that also. However supposing that this love is a separate “person” from the father and son (as most understand the trinity) harms and hampers this understanding by introducing another party in the “marriage” so to speak. I think marriage does represent the Godhead and the inclusion of a third party that doesn’t resemble the other two makes things needlessly difficult.

[verga]

which is generally more reliable, the opinion of an 18th century historian unversed in biblical scholarship or biblical scholars?

False Dichotomy. You need to rely on Sacred Tradition, the Magesterium, and the Bible, all working together.

[DouglasKC]

You have not lied just to human beings but to God.” What? Do you just ignore Acts 5:3-5?

I'm not...all these are easily explainable by just taking these verses for what they say...it IS the holy spirit of God. It's not a separate person from God. In the case of teh indwelling spirit in Christians it's the spirit of Christ. In the general sense of God's spirit on earth it IS his spirit, his presence, his love, on earth.

But it's NOT a separate and co-equal person for all the reasons and scriptures I posted.

[Colofornian]

ALL: Douglas wrote:

How about...people? After all we're made in the image of God...right? Two sexes, man and woman. We all have: 2 eyes. 2 ears. 2 hands. 2 ears. 2 lungs. 2 breasts. 2 testicles (men). 2 ovaries (women). 2 kidneys. 2 legs. 2 arms. 2 legs. 2 brain halves. 2 nostrils. 2 lips. Our bodies SCREAM two. Two are joined in marriage.

Two BECOME ONE

Mat_19:5 and said, 'FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE,

AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH' ?

Mat_19:6 So then, they are NO LONGER TWO two BUT ONE flesh

Therefore WHAT GOD HAS JOINED TOGETHER, LET NOT MAN SEPARATE."

Do you actually read what you cut & paste? (Perhaps you might want to re-peruse what you wrote, especially the portion I highlighted for you!!!)

Douglas I actually want to THANK YOU for citing the very passage that "makes this case!"

In marriage, two become one, right? (Or DO two remain two, per Jesus?) NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Class," if I told you to pick a number between 0 and 6 as to what NUMBER Jesus would define a marital unit as, would you pick 5? (No) 4? (No) 3? (No) 2? (NO!!!!) 1? (Bingo!!!!)

Jesus then RE-EMPHASIZED that this marital entity-unity is "NO LONGER" two? (You don't have any trouble defining that phrase "no longer," do you Douglas???)

Then, for even ADDITIONAL ADDED emphasis, Jesus says don't separate what God has joined together, right?

Now Douglas...tell us, is God & Jesus more unified than any given husband & wife? (Yes or no will do fine here)

Therefore, if God/Jesus regards a married couple as "ONE" & doesn't regard them anymore as "two" & has joined them together & warned people NOT to divide this oneness...and IF God/Jesus are more unified than any given couple is...a couple made in God's image...then...

Who are YOU to come along and disregard God/Jesus' oneness?
Who are YOU to separate what is enjoined?
Who are YOU to disregard Jesus when He plainly said: 30 I and the Father are one.” (John 10:30) ???