Divine Inspiration

[tackattack]

---

I would wager a bet that if you called the average Western Christian a polytheist, they'd be confused and offended. Perhaps it's just lack of refined teaching or exposure to other perspectives or beliefs.

"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, the maker of heaven and earth, of things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the begotten of God the Father, the Only-begotten, that is of the essence of the Father. God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten and not made; of the very same nature of the Father, by Whom all things came into being, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible...We believe in the Holy Spirit, in the uncreated and the perfect;... "
This is not modalism. 3 beings (in relation) one nature (in essence). It's not like it's that difficult of a concept. Using a more ironic example than the shamrock, let's use Cerberus. One dog, three dog heads; each independent but in essence one. Similar to Tertullian and Aquinas thoughts on the subject.

I disagree that it's not that difficult of a concept. In trying to force the Trinity to make sense and make it not sound so difficult, some Christians have resorted to a form of polytheism, modalism, or "tripartism", while sincerely believing they're holding to the mainstream Trinity doctrine.

Again, the Trinity is one God (one being), the Father is that one being, the Son is that one being, the Holy Spirit is that one being, but they are each distinct from one another in the sense that the Father is an "I", the Son is another "I", and the Holy Spirit is yet another "I", but it is nevertheless the same one being/entity. The Father is not a part/head of God, and neither is the Son or the Holy Spirit. So neither the shamrock example nor the Cerberus one accurately illustrates the concept of the Trinity.

In other words, God is not greater in totality than any of the Persons of God.

This is a good link to read for a proper understanding of what the Trinity is NOT:
https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/wha...he-trinity

---

It may be complex, but I don't think it's difficult, which is probably my biases talking. To quote you're decent link "He is three in a different way than he is one." People may find it more difficult because it seems to be self-contradictory. If you can understand "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times" then you can understand this concept (not that you don't of course). That is why I clarified earlier, 3 beings (in relation) one nature (in essence) and 1x1x1=1. Regardless, I believe at least you and I are on the same page as to what the Trinity is, just not whether it's a comprehendible or well demonstrable abstract idea.


@LadyForCamus - Thanks I try to be. Actually on that honesty note, I think I missed addressing a question you had, but I can't seem to find it. If I didn't address anything it's merely due to my inability to organize , not my unwillingness to address.
"doesn’t cause to you re-evaluate those levels?" - regularly, hence my mere presence here.
"Would you agree that if you were raised Muslim, your confidence level in the proposition that Jesus is the son of god would be far lower than it is today?" I can't see that it would be less confident than the "average miracle" but yes lower than it is today.
"Based on that example, would you say that indoctrination is a valid method for arriving at confidence levels about such claims? " valid as a tool, definitely not. Acknowledgeable, as an influence on the lens of experience, definitely. I can't take the green tint out of my view of the world without acknowledging that my lens has some green in it, but that doesn't mean there isn't a color green on the other side of that lens.