The Trinity Doctrine: Help me out, Christians

[chimp3]

Humans excel at making shit up and then calling it a mystery.

[GrandizerII]

Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are nothing more than different titles held by the same God.

God = God above us
Son = God with us
Holy Spirit = God in us

Did not God tell Moses that he was I AM? Did not Jesus state that "before Abraham was born, I am"?

Jesus was God in human flesh, hence why he was called Emmanuel which means God with us.

Also does not the bible state that Jesus was the fullness of the Godhead bodily?

For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. - Colossians 2:9

If Jesus is part of a trinity then that would make him part of the Godhead not the fullness of it.

What you're saying is definitely more logical, but it is considered heresy by the mainstream Christian churches. Regardless, you might want to reread the Bible, considering it contains passages where the Son is clearly distinct from the Father.

[Minimalist]

Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are nothing more than different titles held by the same God.

FTFY

[vulcanlogician]

I found an interesting tidbit looking this up on wikipedia

In the introduction to his 1964 translation of Meditations, the Anglican priest Maxwell Staniforth discussed the profound influence of Stoic philosophy on Christianity. In particular:

Again in the doctrine of the Trinity, the ecclesiastical conception of Father, Word, and Spirit finds its germ in the different Stoic names of the Divine Unity. Thus Seneca, writing of the supreme Power which shapes the universe, states, 'This Power we sometimes call the All-ruling God, sometimes the incorporeal Wisdom, sometimes the holy Spirit, sometimes Destiny.' The Church had only to reject the last of these terms to arrive at its own acceptable definition of the Divine Nature; while the further assertion 'these three are One', which the modern mind finds paradoxical, was no more than commonplace to those familiar with Stoic notions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity

EDIT: This is interesting because Early Christianity often drew on Stoic philosophy in order to make its teachings more familiar to Roman gentiles whom the Christians were trying to convert.

[SteveII]

Let's see if we can make some sense out of this.

The Trinity, in the mainstream sense, refers to the one God who is three Persons, each being fully the one God, yet distinct from each other.

The Father is fully the one God.

The Son is fully the one God.

The Holy Spirit is fully the one God.

They are all one and the same God, yet three distinct Persons of God?

Of course, many of us are aware of the history behind how the Trinity doctrine came to be, but let's overlook that for the sake of argument and let's see how theists who are all about using logic can make logical sense out of this one.

Remember, the Persons of the Trinity are each the one and only God; they are not aspects/states of the one God (i.e., modalism) or three gods in one (e.g., as Mormons believe).

While I doubt your intentions are for mutual understanding, here goes...

Your Father, Son, Holy Spirit statements are wrong and an obvious attempt to write into your question your conclusion. God is one thing. One soul. Even saying Jesus is God is technically wrong because Jesus =/= God. The Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit = God. 

God is a soul. What is a soul? The soul or mind is an immaterial or spiritual substance that makes you you (the "I" when you refer to yourself). It is not equal to your brain but relies on it in our present state much like a computer software relies on computer hardware. The soul holds our consciousness, which includes our intellect and volition which allow us to be self-reflective and capable of self determination. I believe like J. P. Moreland that there are various type of souls--from a basic animal with simple reasoning abilities to Chimpanzees with richer capabilities, to humans with even more, to God at the pinnacle. 

We experience that each of us has a soul/mind equipped with advanced rational cognitive faculties that we say is sufficient for personhood. God is one soul with three complete sets of rational cognitive faculties with three centers of self-consciousness, intentionality, and will. One immaterial soul containing three distinct persons. There are interesting attributes this creates like God is a relational being and is capable of relational interactions--even within himself (much like we are better people having relationships with other persons). 

While I am not going to say this is the absolute right way to view the trinity, it does counter any claims of being incoherent or illogical.

[Huggy Bear]

Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are nothing more than different titles held by the same God.

God = God above us
Son = God with us
Holy Spirit = God in us

Did not God tell Moses that he was I AM? Did not Jesus state that "before Abraham was born, I am"?

Jesus was God in human flesh, hence why he was called Emmanuel which means God with us.

Also does not the bible state that Jesus was the fullness of the Godhead bodily?

For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. - Colossians 2:9

If Jesus is part of a trinity then that would make him part of the Godhead not the fullness of it.

What you're saying is definitely more logical, but it is considered heresy by the mainstream Christian churches. Regardless, you might want to reread the Bible, considering it contains passages where the Son is clearly distinct from the Father.

There is no distinction, Jesus clearly stated that he and the Father are one, and that if you see him then you see the Father.

Are you and your father one? If I see you do I also see your father?

I and my Father are one. - John 10:30

Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? - John 14:9

[Cyberman]

I think it's more accurate to think of time as the zeroth dimension, permeating throughout all 'higher' spatial dimensions and sort of gluing them together å la spacetime. Otherwise there would be no time in the dimensions we experience, so no events would be possible.

[GrandizerII]

There is no distinction, Jesus clearly stated that he and the Father are one, and that if you see him then you see the Father.

This is John we're talking about. The last thing you want to do is take what he says literally. After all, do you literally eat Jesus and drink his blood when doing the Communion?

Are you and your father one? If I see you do I also see your father?

Unfortunately, yes. I look too much like him.

But anyway, who did Jesus speak to then when he was talking to the Father? Was he really talking to himself?

And right when Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, according to the Gospels, what happened then?

---

I think it's more accurate to think of time as the zeroth dimension, permeating throughout all 'higher' spatial dimensions and sort of gluing them together å la spacetime. Otherwise there would be no time in the dimensions we experience, so no events would be possible.

Either way, the fourth dimension (or higher) can be mathematically represented, and it doesn't defy logic. The Trinity, on the other hand ...

[Cyberman]

Yep.

[RoadRunner79]

I don't think that the doctrine of the Trinity was deduced logically, but rather it is observed in scripture.

I would say there was some logical derivation (or rather an attempt at it) that happened, using premises in the Scriptures. It's just that the conclusion itself defies logic.

That God is three and God is one.  I don't understand what you are trying to logically make sense of.... I think that you may be trying to use the wrong tool.    However I think you did well in your description.

You don't see how the way I described the Trinity (which you agree is an apt description) defies logic?

If F = G, and S = G, and H = G, is it true that F = S = H?

I suspect, that your mistake, is similar to those who say that there is a contradiction within in the trinity.  This is incorrect;  the law of non-contradiction states that two contradictory statements cannot both be true at the same time, in the same way.  So  I would agree, that in one sense your equation above is correct.  This is similar to the fallacy of equivocation, in that some try to equate this to the other way, and say that they are not equal.  If they are equal and not equal, it is said that this a contradiction.  But this is wrong, because they are not talking about being 3 and being 1 in the same way. 

I hope that perhaps this clears things up.  I realize that I had to make some assumptions, as you didn't really state what you think it is that defies logic.  If you are referring to something else, then please clarify.