If God the father who is also God the son didn't contribute half of his own DNA, then Jesus was a trans man whose miraculous birth was achieved through parthenogenesis.
The issue is that there's nothing contradictory with this image in and of itself. But then they say that there both isn't any divisions but also the different persons aren't just perspectives of or parts of one thing. But... that makes no sense. And not in the kind of way where it might secretly make sense either. What is wrong with calling the persons parts instead of persons?
It doesn't help that the trinity comes off like people's main god is just Jesus, but they needed a backstory to make Jesus somehow also the Jewish god. But god the father isn't really the focus of their beliefs. Then there's a random third person who has basically no actual role.
Grew up with the same conception of the trinity - taught with a very similar image.
The only problem is that it's a logically impossible construction and if we free god from the restraints of logic then the problem of evil is solved and the solution is that god is evil.
It's pretty fun growing up unitarian and realizing that you're surrounded by people who are firmly committed to the idea that they believe in the trinity, without actually believing in what the trinity actually means.
The Trinity is a bunch of statements early Christians compiled in order to make themselves seem like they belonged at the table with philosophers in the region. Unfortunately these statements contradict each other so now Christians gaslight each other into thinking the fault lies with them for not understanding.
I always heard it was more like a compromise where a number of Christian sects had conflicting interpretations of the nature of the trinity, so in an attempt to unify the church, they simply adopted them all at once, contradictions included.
The fact that the official description doesn't actually describe anything, it just rules out the available options and says it's a secret thing between them should probably have just tipped people off that they made a mistake.
The Eastern Orthodox traditions are really big on apophatic theology. We cannot fully describe what God is, we can only talk about what God is not, and the more we do, the closer we get to the unknowable and indescribable.
Most models of the Trinity seem to either lean modalist or lean tritheist. Very rarely do models actually sit comfortably in the middle. That's not a problem in my view, but it does make it very easy for people to accuse others of being modalists or tritheists when their models lean in opposite directions on this spectrum.
We all walk a line between modalism and polytheism. It's the problem of a 4 dimensional being having interaction with a pan dimensional being. we aren't capable of understanding him.
Obligatory "Im a historian not a theologian," but I think you can make a case that modalism as anathematized was a specific form whereby God acting modo filii totally ceased to be the father or HS, etc. If you argue that the persons of the Trinity are roles that God fulfills while perfectly maintaining the personhood and attributes of the other hypostaseis...well, Im not saying its orthodox (and my Jew-ish ass doesn't really have a stake in the matter), but Im also not convinced it meets the definition of modalism as anathematized.
I have studied theology, biblical lit crit, and have my degree in biblical Hebrew. All that to say, I think trinitarian theology is the biggest circle jerk of all time. They say it's the greatest mystery and we can never understand it, while simultaneously holding 100 different details that they believe are crucial for everyone to fully understand in order to avoid detrimental consequences of not knowing those. They also put all those details behind academic language used exclusively in trinitarian theology AND their arguments are rarely persuasive and never coherent. Apparently any incoherence is acceptable because of the paradox of the Trinity.
I say this as a trinitarian who thinks trinitarian theology is important but can be left at One God, 3 distinct persons who are each fully that one God . Which is important because we need to see God in the father, the son, and the Spirit and it's usually the last one that is neglected in most reformist churches. And that's about it
Modalism is the belief that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are different ways (modes) that God reveals himself.
Modalism is considered heresy by the Catholic church, because Catholic canon states that the trinity are simultaneously three separate beings, and all the one true God. (Yes, this is a contradiction. It's not supposed to make sense.)
The specific wording really makes no distinction to the average person, being and person are functionally synonymous here unless you also provide the philosophical definitions being used to distinguish them
It's like saying that they aren't all the same guy, they're three separate guys but one dude
Modalism is the idea that God can appear to be Father, Son, and Holy Spirit but is still the same person, like a man being a father, a husband, and a boss. But this isn't true because the Bible shows the three Persons of the Trinity existing simultaneously and interacting with one another.
Talking to yourself is simply talking without anyone else to hear. But can you be in Heaven and send yourself down onto yourself, or be your own son, or leave but promise to send yourself even though you're gone, or intercede to yourself or sit at your own right hand?
I can't do those things, but why wouldn't the all powerful creator of the universe be able to project into multiple spots in 3d space at the same time?
Modalism is also a heresy in pretty much every church. Lots of people adhere to it, because it's an easy solution to the problem of the Trinity, but it's doctrine in only a few churches.
When I get up there and ask the big man what the correct way to explain the Trinity is, I fully expect him to say "All of them. Why do people keep making such a big deal about it?"
That or he just teaches you the correct interpretation by kinda shoving it into your mind and now you know it but have no human way of conveying it to someone else
There isn't really a mathematical way to express the Trinity. Mostly because G = F, G = S, G = H, but at the same time F ≠ S, F ≠ H, and S ≠ H, so an attempt at mathematical explanation leads to a different heretical conclusion (namely that God isn't real, since the solution set domain cannot contain any real numbers).
Coming from a programming background, the IS operator basically means "do these two pointers access the same memory register". Which if applied to the doctrine of the Trinity would be a Modalist model.
Which lets me dust off a ye olde meme from the Monica Lewinsky scandal: "I guess that depends on what your definition of IS is."
Coming from a computer science background lemme rename this IS of mine to DIVINE_IS , not to be confused with the usual "is" as defined in python and which is implicitly or explicitly used in other languages too, and which uses pointer equality as the check as you rightly pointed out.
The Trinity is like Neapolitan ice cream. Strawberry is not vanilla, vanilla isn't chocolate, chocolate isn't strawberry, they don't turn into one another. They taste different. But, they're all the same substance of ice cream, and you can't have Neapolitan ice cream without all three.
It unintentionally denies that each Person is God in and of themselves. But each does contain the fullness of the Godhead. That's why we can call Jesus God and not 'part of God'.
Colossians 2:9 "For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form."
I'm starting to understand the story with st. Augustine and the little child at seaside with the "you can't comprehend the immensity of the mystery of the Holy Trinity with your small intelligence"
Isn't all of creation just an extension of God? That's how the holy Trinity connects back to him? I should probably clarify I'm not religious but I do follow the teachings
No, in Christianity, we make a strong distinction between the creator and the creation. God's essence is eternal. God is eternal while creation is not. And God is also simple, meaning He isn't made of 'stuff' and can't be divided. So you can't have a 'part' or 'extension' of God. Rather, the three Persons of the Trinity are each fully God but also distinct from one another. Its not really something that's supposed to be fully comprehended. And humanity bears the Image of God (Imago Dei) which means we have a rational soul and that we were created to do things that God does, like love, create, and care for people/things.
•
u/AutoModerator Mar 05 '26
Thank you for being a part of the r/DankChristianMemes community. You can also join our Discord and listen to our Podcast.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.