The age of the one asking the question is not stated in the message I do believe. Sarah's (Xaira) answer is in this light quite appropriate since she is addressing an adult. It is also my assumption that I am dealing with adults here, for nowhere do I see any indications this is a youth-forum. It seems natural to assume that the forum is a meeting place of adults, unless otherwise indicated. This may very well be a transgression on my part, of which I was previously unaware. I apologize.
The analogy of the sun and rays has indeed been employed by the Sabellians in order to deny the Trinity (namely the personal distinctions as you yourself have correctly noted). The objection to thu use of this anology must therefore stand. It is an analogy which teaches that there is no such thing as a Trinity, but merely God manifesting in three modes, rather than persons.
Safaa's intention may have been entirely Orthodox, but that does not make the analogy an Orthodox one.
Lastly, Tertullian,.. He may have been the first to actually use the term Trinity, but that does not necessarily mean his doctrine is indeed trinitarian. Upon examination you will find that Tertullian believed that God was Trinity only on the level of economy (that is God turned-towards-the-world God as He manifests Himself IN time outside His eternity). Tertullian's trinitarianism is at best shallow, and it suffers from the general Western flaw of putting the Essence of God above the Persons. Despite his issues with Praxeas, Tertullian does not seem to have risen far above Sabellianism himself either. His use of the analogy is, as far as I can see, suspect (though I would accept it, but not agree to its content, from a more Orthodox teacher, such as aforementioned clergy, and Safaa in the given context).
The age of the one asking the question is not stated in the message I do believe.
That is right. My response to xaira was not based on the supposition that she reasonably ought to have been aware of the fact that according to Sandra’s profile she is 13 years old; I was simply pointing out that very fact which I know safaa herself is aware of (since we recently had issues on this forum concerning people of sandra’s age who were flooding the forum with trivial threads, and I distinctively remember safaa being a proponent of the call for the reform of the forum in order to accommodate such people), and concluding that in this context, safaa’s employment of the sun analogy is appropriate.
The objection to thu use of this anology must therefore stand.
The objection stands only when the analogy is considered in a vacuum stripped of any circumstantial context; for it certainly does not perfectly represent each and every fundamental principle of the Orthododx doctrine of the Trinity, and it is certainly flawed in respect of the fact it does not account for personal distinction. However, the fact of the matter is that adopting such a strict line of thought would necessarily lead you to condemn each and every church father who has ever employed an analogy per se to explain Trinitarian or Christological issues, since all such analogies would necessarily fall short in one aspect or another.
We can sit here for example and point out the fallacies in St Cyril’s body-soul analogy, in which he accounts for two incomplete substances uniting to constitute a complete substance, or even the fire-iron analogy in which one of the elements of the union does not even possess an essence in and of itself...however I doubt you would wish to condemn St Cyril.
Each analogy has its strength, and the sun analogy is appropriate in accounting for other fundamental aspects of the Trinity, including the doctrine of source-automatically-generates-product, which I do not think is a principle of sabellianism.
Lastly, Tertullian,..
Okay, forget Tertullian.
St Athanasius: Discourse II Against the Arians, Ch. 18 – Section 32 point 5, Section 42 point 16:
Just some remarks about the use of the analogy. I agree to the weaknesses you pointed out in it. However not to its watering down. Due to its strong heretical ties it is unwise to use that analogy loosely, as one of the posts in this thread seems to do. If considered from a theological pov. I remain unconvinced of its proper contextualization in that message. A proper context would have been one that would have safeguarded the personal distinctions in the Trinity, but such context is insufficiently given, even when we take into consideration the age of the person asking the question.
having read your references to St. Athanasius it must have struck you as it does me that he is making a Christological point, and not a Trinitarian one. He does not attempt to explain the Persons of the Trinity (as seemed to be the case in aforementioned message) but he seeks to explain their common nature. This is, for me, a sufficiently Orthodox context for this analogy. However, if we turn it into a trinitarian point we are faulting St. Athanasius in the proces. For the analogy is used in reference to the Father and the Son only which is Binitarian but not Trinitarian. Understanding St. Athanasius in the given context leaves me to take his use of the sun-analogy as a matter of Christology, expressing the consubstantiality of Father and Son. Indeed, St. Athanasius does not develop a theology of the Trinity as Trinity until he starts writing his letters to Serapion, and I am not familiar with him using this analogy in this context. But even than, the analogy cannot be used to explain the Trinity, only consubstantiality. I do not think that it is clear from that particular post that it is consubstantiality that is being expressed, it may equally well have explained the personality.
By this I do not mean to ascribe to Safaa an un-Orthodox intention or doctrine per se,.. I simply mean to point out that the Orthodoxy of her message does not shine through sufficiently. There is a necessary context lacking. But, this is from a theological pov. I understood the question to be a matter of theology on an adult level, and on that level the analogy is fundamentally flawed in this context. But given the context of explaining the Trinity to a 13 year-old, I can understand and accept it. If provided with a disclaimer, possibly another (inadequate of course) analogy safeguarding the personal reality of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
I would indeed never condemn St. Cyril's theology. His use of the soul-body analogy is not, to my knowledge, connected to any specific heresy (as the sun-analogy is), and that makes a world of difference to me. But yes, I fully agree that analogies are necessarily limited and never literal. It is not the analogies in themselves (usually) that are wrong but the way it is used. The sun-analogy in a trinitarian context is an "unhappy" one, and as such it was not used in the texts you referred to of St. Athanasius. The context is everything, even if the analogy was used by some Orthodox fathers.
IC XC,
Grigorii
Ps. Safaa, if you are reading this still, pls be sure I do not intend to single you out. I am concerned with the analogy of the sun and its context from a theological pov. I do not doubt your Orthodox intent, nor your genuine Christian charity in answering a searching young soul. I highly respect you for this deeply Orthodox Christian act on your part, as I equally respect your personal Orthodox belief.
having read your references to St. Athanasius it must have struck you as it does me that he is making a Christological point, and not a Trinitarian one.
I would say that St Athanasius is making a Trinitarian point in order to prove a Christological point, since the very “unity” in “tri-unity” pertains to the common divine essence shared inter alia, and it is this very common essence which accounts for the divinity of Christ's person.
Trinitarianism is only true Trinitarianism if it accounts for a number of fundamental principles, many of which the sun analogy is useful for evidencing as I have already explained. It even account for a certain principle that refutes Sabellianism as I also already mentioned - that of source-automatically-generates-product. Correct me if im wrong, but Sabellianism does not adhere to this principle of Christ’s being eternally begotten of the Father.
Furthermore, as I also pointed out and as im sure you’re aware, Sabellians used particular terminology both before and after such terminology was employed in a Trinitarian context; yet no one here is condemning the fathers of Nicea.
Let us just conclude on the agreement that all analogies fall short of describing the indescribable, and agree to disagree on the rest.
I like to compare it to the sun..The actual sun is god....The rays which touch the earth are Jesus.... the heat is the holy spirit...this might help!! [move]Monica[/move]
[glow=red,2,300]I like to compare it to the sun..The actual sun is god....The rays which touch the earth are Jesus.... the heat is the holy spirit[/glow] where did you get this from????? thanks and god bless!!!!
good morning is all of this time you were lost the sun is made up of 3thing like the light and the heatand finaly the rays i think the rays are right!!
Spiritually, Jesus and God were one even while Jesus was a human. God the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are all one to create the Holy Trinity. The Holy Trinity is God. Jesus is without sin, so He must have been God.
The best way to explain the Trinity, in my opinion, is to use light.
Picture a light in your head (not the sun or a star, which is made from molten iron, or anything like that - just light). Now picture that light shining with two rays.
The rays are also light, of the same substance, being generated from the light, cannot exist without the light, and are never seperated from the light. Also, you can never have a light that doesn't shine. In short, they are the one same light - but at the same time distinct and different.
This is the same as the Trinity, the Word (Son) and Spirit are of the same substance as the Father, are generated (begotten/proceeding) from the Father, cannot exist without the Father, nor does the Father exist without a Word and Spirit. The three are One single being, yet distinct and different.
Jesus is God and was never separated. In the thursday theotokia (Tasbeha...Psalmody) the refrain is "He did not cease to be divine: He came and became the Son of Man: But He is the true God: He came and saved us.
I can give the "official" answer by Roman Catholic Church: it is a Mistery.. that all
From the Cathechism: 14 Q. Can we comprehend all the truths of Faith? A. No, we cannot comprehend all the truths of Faith, because some of these truths are mysteries. 15 Q. What are mysteries? A. Mysteries are truths above reason and which we are to believe even though we cannot comprehend them. 16 Q. Why must we believe mysteries? A. We must believe mysteries because they are revealed to us by God, who, being infinite Truth and Goodness, can neither deceive nor be deceived.
Mysteries are two: - Unity and Trinity of God; - Incarnation (became man), Passion and Death of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Here how mysteries can be explained to childen: Think to a very intellent dog. He is very smart, but he will never be able to understestand many humans behaviors. There is a very bigger difference from man to God than from man to dog. If dogs cannot undestand men, how more difficoulty men can fully understand God?
sandrahanna, The Manhood of Our Lord Jesus Christ is a full man (body and soul) but without sin. He walked, sat, spoke, ate, drank, wore clothes, fasted, slept, prayed, sweated, cried, washed, hoped, felt all pains, died etc and like every person, He was a baby then teen then adult. Jesus Godhead was never separated from His Manhood, not even in His death and He resurrected the third day according to the prophecies.
a_ntv, Your reply helped me a lot to explain, cases of some RC friends I know, why they freely chose to revert to COC orthodoxy. Brother, God reveals according to His Wisdom, for His Love for us and His Glory. He revealed Himself as Jesus Christ and we saw Him. He tells us to research (nb: but not to invent out of thin air) because He wants us to know. He put all the truth in His creation etc (Job 12). All His baptised children receive confirmation and Holy annointment in the church they thus bear the Holy Spirit and can receive the Sacraments in their earliest age. All these blessings support, explain and guide us all.
PS: He also instructed us not to hinder children from Him.
ok i was confused so i had someone explain it to me this is what i was taught but all thepost had me very confused its god the father god the son god the holy guost all are one never divided.Thanks all this is a easy subject to get confused about if you misunderstand somethin.
Look lol, Jesus has never been separated from god just simply because he is god, there is one GOD but with three hypostasis, and these three hypostatis are the father, the son and the holyspirit, each one of these three hypostatis is GOD. If you read the gospel of six hour of the Agpeia, the gospel of saint john, you will get a better meaning. Don't try to think about separation, it is exactly like the idea of the sun, you can't separate the heat from the sun. Another example if you have a piece of iron that is very very heated with fire (Red heated Iron), and then you used a hammer to hammer it, ask yourself a question: are you hammering the piece of iron that is heated with fire, or you hammering the actual fire that is heating the iron?? again when our lord Jesus sent his desciples to preach, he said baptise them with the NAME of the (father, the son and the holy spirit), he didn't say the NAMES of the (father, the son and holy spirit), so this basically proves that there is one GOD but this GOD has three hypostatis, the father, the son, and the holy spirit. I would prefer that you get one of the books for his holiness pope shenouda, he explains fully this matter in the book of (comparative theology) and you will be able to get over any confusion you facing.
[quote author=Orthodox11 link=board=12;threadid=1913;start=45#msg51994 date=1144233594] The best way to explain the Trinity, in my opinion, is to use light.
Picture a light in your head (not the sun or a star, which is made from molten iron, or anything like that - just light). Now picture that light shining with two rays.
The rays are also light, of the same substance, being generated from the light, cannot exist without the light, and are never seperated from the light. Also, you can never have a light that doesn't shine. In short, they are the one same light - but at the same time distinct and different.
This is the same as the Trinity, the Word (Son) and Spirit are of the same substance as the Father, are generated (begotten/proceeding) from the Father, cannot exist without the Father, nor does the Father exist without a Word and Spirit. The three are One single being, yet distinct and different.
About God and Jesus I've heard it like that and understood it well.
God is like a fountain of water with no limits. By taking a glass of water and filling it from the fountain both got the same water and the glass has a percentage of the unlimited water. So both are the same but the 2nd one has the appearance to be shown to ppl (body)
God is eternal. He can never be separated. The Father, the Son, & the Holy Spirit are that ONE true, eternal, almighty God!
God chose to reveal Himself to us as The father, The Son, & The Holy Spirit for our own good. For it is God the Father who created the universe & loved us from the beginning, it is God the Son who became flesh to die for us & save us from our near infinite sins, & it is God the Holy Spirit who works in us, & protects His church from evil, & brings people to salvation in Christ.
If God did not reveal Himself as a trinity, than He would not have been able to do these wonderful things for us. He would have been like the Muslim god, imperfect & unable to love from forever!
So when Christ died on the cross, it was ONLY His human body that died. His divinity did not & cannot die, because He is God. His blood, being sinless & divine, was enough to save every person that have believed in Him from their sins.
Comments
The age of the one asking the question is not stated in the message I do believe. Sarah's (Xaira) answer is in this light quite appropriate since she is addressing an adult. It is also my assumption that I am dealing with adults here, for nowhere do I see any indications this is a youth-forum. It seems natural to assume that the forum is a meeting place of adults, unless otherwise indicated. This may very well be a transgression on my part, of which I was previously unaware. I apologize.
The analogy of the sun and rays has indeed been employed by the Sabellians in order to deny the Trinity (namely the personal distinctions as you yourself have correctly noted). The objection to thu use of this anology must therefore stand. It is an analogy which teaches that there is no such thing as a Trinity, but merely God manifesting in three modes, rather than persons.
Safaa's intention may have been entirely Orthodox, but that does not make the analogy an Orthodox one.
Lastly, Tertullian,.. He may have been the first to actually use the term Trinity, but that does not necessarily mean his doctrine is indeed trinitarian. Upon examination you will find that Tertullian believed that God was Trinity only on the level of economy (that is God turned-towards-the-world God as He manifests Himself IN time outside His eternity). Tertullian's trinitarianism is at best shallow, and it suffers from the general Western flaw of putting the Essence of God above the Persons. Despite his issues with Praxeas, Tertullian does not seem to have risen far above Sabellianism himself either. His use of the analogy is, as far as I can see, suspect (though I would accept it, but not agree to its content, from a more Orthodox teacher, such as aforementioned clergy, and Safaa in the given context).
IC XC,
Grigorii
We can sit here for example and point out the fallacies in St Cyril’s body-soul analogy, in which he accounts for two incomplete substances uniting to constitute a complete substance, or even the fire-iron analogy in which one of the elements of the union does not even possess an essence in and of itself...however I doubt you would wish to condemn St Cyril.
Each analogy has its strength, and the sun analogy is appropriate in accounting for other fundamental aspects of the Trinity, including the doctrine of source-automatically-generates-product, which I do not think is a principle of sabellianism. Okay, forget Tertullian.
St Athanasius: Discourse II Against the Arians, Ch. 18 – Section 32 point 5, Section 42 point 16:
http://www.newmanreader.org/works/athanasius/original/discourse2-3.html
Peace.
Approaching agreement it seems ;)
Just some remarks about the use of the analogy. I agree to the weaknesses you pointed out in it. However not to its watering down. Due to its strong heretical ties it is unwise to use that analogy loosely, as one of the posts in this thread seems to do. If considered from a theological pov. I remain unconvinced of its proper contextualization in that message. A proper context would have been one that would have safeguarded the personal distinctions in the Trinity, but such context is insufficiently given, even when we take into consideration the age of the person asking the question.
having read your references to St. Athanasius it must have struck you as it does me that he is making a Christological point, and not a Trinitarian one. He does not attempt to explain the Persons of the Trinity (as seemed to be the case in aforementioned message) but he seeks to explain their common nature. This is, for me, a sufficiently Orthodox context for this analogy. However, if we turn it into a trinitarian point we are faulting St. Athanasius in the proces. For the analogy is used in reference to the Father and the Son only which is Binitarian but not Trinitarian. Understanding St. Athanasius in the given context leaves me to take his use of the sun-analogy as a matter of Christology, expressing the consubstantiality of Father and Son. Indeed, St. Athanasius does not develop a theology of the Trinity as Trinity until he starts writing his letters to Serapion, and I am not familiar with him using this analogy in this context. But even than, the analogy cannot be used to explain the Trinity, only consubstantiality. I do not think that it is clear from that particular post that it is consubstantiality that is being expressed, it may equally well have explained the personality.
By this I do not mean to ascribe to Safaa an un-Orthodox intention or doctrine per se,.. I simply mean to point out that the Orthodoxy of her message does not shine through sufficiently. There is a necessary context lacking. But, this is from a theological pov. I understood the question to be a matter of theology on an adult level, and on that level the analogy is fundamentally flawed in this context. But given the context of explaining the Trinity to a 13 year-old, I can understand and accept it. If provided with a disclaimer, possibly another (inadequate of course) analogy safeguarding the personal reality of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
I would indeed never condemn St. Cyril's theology. His use of the soul-body analogy is not, to my knowledge, connected to any specific heresy (as the sun-analogy is), and that makes a world of difference to me. But yes, I fully agree that analogies are necessarily limited and never literal. It is not the analogies in themselves (usually) that are wrong but the way it is used. The sun-analogy in a trinitarian context is an "unhappy" one, and as such it was not used in the texts you referred to of St. Athanasius. The context is everything, even if the analogy was used by some Orthodox fathers.
IC XC,
Grigorii
Ps. Safaa, if you are reading this still, pls be sure I do not intend to single you out. I am concerned with the analogy of the sun and its context from a theological pov. I do not doubt your Orthodox intent, nor your genuine Christian charity in answering a searching young soul. I highly respect you for this deeply Orthodox Christian act on your part, as I equally respect your personal Orthodox belief.
Trinitarianism is only true Trinitarianism if it accounts for a number of fundamental principles, many of which the sun analogy is useful for evidencing as I have already explained. It even account for a certain principle that refutes Sabellianism as I also already mentioned - that of source-automatically-generates-product. Correct me if im wrong, but Sabellianism does not adhere to this principle of Christ’s being eternally begotten of the Father.
Furthermore, as I also pointed out and as im sure you’re aware, Sabellians used particular terminology both before and after such terminology was employed in a Trinitarian context; yet no one here is condemning the fathers of Nicea.
Let us just conclude on the agreement that all analogies fall short of describing the indescribable, and agree to disagree on the rest.
Peace.
batikha-basketball ;)
Peace
[move]Monica[/move]
batikha-basketball :)
Picture a light in your head (not the sun or a star, which is made from molten iron, or anything like that - just light). Now picture that light shining with two rays.
The rays are also light, of the same substance, being generated from the light, cannot exist without the light, and are never seperated from the light. Also, you can never have a light that doesn't shine. In short, they are the one same light - but at the same time distinct and different.
This is the same as the Trinity, the Word (Son) and Spirit are of the same substance as the Father, are generated (begotten/proceeding) from the Father, cannot exist without the Father, nor does the Father exist without a Word and Spirit. The three are One single being, yet distinct and different.
Hope that makes sense.
From the Cathechism:
14 Q. Can we comprehend all the truths of Faith? A. No, we cannot comprehend all the truths of Faith, because some of these truths are mysteries.
15 Q. What are mysteries? A. Mysteries are truths above reason and which we are to believe even though we cannot comprehend them.
16 Q. Why must we believe mysteries? A. We must believe mysteries because they are revealed to us by God, who, being infinite Truth and Goodness, can neither deceive nor be deceived.
Mysteries are two:
- Unity and Trinity of God;
- Incarnation (became man), Passion and Death of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Here how mysteries can be explained to childen:
Think to a very intellent dog. He is very smart, but he will never be able to understestand many humans behaviors.
There is a very bigger difference from man to God than from man to dog.
If dogs cannot undestand men, how more difficoulty men can fully understand God?
bye
The Manhood of Our Lord Jesus Christ is a full man (body and soul) but without sin. He walked, sat, spoke, ate, drank, wore clothes, fasted, slept, prayed, sweated, cried, washed, hoped, felt all pains, died etc and like every person, He was a baby then teen then adult. Jesus Godhead was never separated from His Manhood, not even in His death and He resurrected the third day according to the prophecies.
a_ntv,
Your reply helped me a lot to explain, cases of some RC friends I know, why they freely chose to revert to COC orthodoxy.
Brother, God reveals according to His Wisdom, for His Love for us and His Glory. He revealed Himself as Jesus Christ and we saw Him. He tells us to research (nb: but not to invent out of thin air) because He wants us to know. He put all the truth in His creation etc (Job 12).
All His baptised children receive confirmation and Holy annointment in the church they thus bear the Holy Spirit and can receive the Sacraments in their earliest age. All these blessings support, explain and guide us all.
PS: He also instructed us not to hinder children from Him.
The best way to explain the Trinity, in my opinion, is to use light.
Picture a light in your head (not the sun or a star, which is made from molten iron, or anything like that - just light). Now picture that light shining with two rays.
The rays are also light, of the same substance, being generated from the light, cannot exist without the light, and are never seperated from the light. Also, you can never have a light that doesn't shine. In short, they are the one same light - but at the same time distinct and different.
This is the same as the Trinity, the Word (Son) and Spirit are of the same substance as the Father, are generated (begotten/proceeding) from the Father, cannot exist without the Father, nor does the Father exist without a Word and Spirit. The three are One single being, yet distinct and different.
Hope that makes sense.
that has to be the best I've ever heard it put :)
God is like a fountain of water with no limits. By taking a glass of water and filling it from the fountain both got the same water and the glass has a percentage of the unlimited water. So both are the same but the 2nd one has the appearance to be shown to ppl (body)
something like that i thnk is what athanasius said, forgive me for the bad wording
God chose to reveal Himself to us as The father, The Son, & The Holy Spirit for our own good.
For it is God the Father who created the universe & loved us from the beginning, it is God the Son who became flesh to die for us & save us from our near infinite sins, & it is God the Holy Spirit who works in us, & protects His church from evil, & brings people to salvation in Christ.
If God did not reveal Himself as a trinity, than He would not have been able to do these wonderful things for us. He would have been like the Muslim god, imperfect & unable to love from forever!
So when Christ died on the cross, it was ONLY His human body that died. His divinity did not & cannot die, because He is God. His blood, being sinless & divine, was enough to save every person that have believed in Him from their sins.