Hello,
Could some of you give me your thoughts on my following questions?
1. I think we all believe that the human body of Jesus died on the cross, but what about the Son of God as in the Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Did the Son die too?
2. If the Son died, then for a time did the Trinity only consist of Father and Holy Spirit?
3. Are we to believe that Jesus—the human Jesus—was created at His conception? The human Jesus would never have been born without the Holy Spirit's help, so doesn't logic tell us that He was created?
4. If Jesus was created, then who are we worshipping? The human or the divine?
Thanks for your help.
Jesus' death on the cross and the Trinity
-
Christian2
- Advanced Senior Member
- Posts: 991
- Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 10:27 am
-
Jac3510
- Ultimate Member
- Posts: 5472
- Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:53 pm
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
- Location: Fort Smith, AR
- Contact:
You'll be happy to know, I think, that the early Church Fathers dealt pretty much with these questions early on when they were first establishing the doctrine of the Trinity. There was a belief called Monarchianism popular in the second century A.D. It came in two forms, Dynamic Monarchianism (or Adoptionism), and Modalistic Monarchianism. Briefly, the former taught that Jesus was merely a man who was given special powers by the Holy Spirit at His baptism. This teaching clearly denies the Trinity, so the church rightly rejected it.
Your questions, it seems to me, fall closer to the second idea. It has resurfaced gain in modern years as the "Oneness Movement." Ultimately, this teaching rejects to Trinity as well. In this system, the One God simply manifests Himself in three modes. By taking this approach, one could say that it was not God who died on the Cross, because God cannot die, but simply the human form that God had manifested Himself into. Plus, you avoid the problem of God "being created" at His conception in Mary.
Of course, this system is flawed on the basic account that God is a Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Under a truly Trinitarian perspective then, we might answer your questions this way:
Your questions, it seems to me, fall closer to the second idea. It has resurfaced gain in modern years as the "Oneness Movement." Ultimately, this teaching rejects to Trinity as well. In this system, the One God simply manifests Himself in three modes. By taking this approach, one could say that it was not God who died on the Cross, because God cannot die, but simply the human form that God had manifested Himself into. Plus, you avoid the problem of God "being created" at His conception in Mary.
Of course, this system is flawed on the basic account that God is a Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Under a truly Trinitarian perspective then, we might answer your questions this way:
Yes, the Son actually died and was separated from the Father and Holy Spirit.1. I think we all believe that the human body of Jesus died on the cross, but what about the Son of God as in the Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Did the Son die too?
No. The Trinity still existed, but one of them was separated from the others. This is the great sacrifice of God. For the first time in ever, the love of God suffered loss. Remember that God is love, and He has perfect love within Himself as all the Person's love one another. However, at the death of Jesus, the Father was forced to turn His back on the Son and the Son took sin upon Himself. It is possibly the greatest mystery in all of Christianity: how can God die? But, He did . . . the Son was separated from the source of life for three days.2. If the Son died, then for a time did the Trinity only consist of Father and Holy Spirit?
The human body of Jesus was created at conception, of course. But, that does not mean the Son was created at Jesus' conception, nor does it mean that Jesus was not the Son. See John 1:1. The Son was incarnated with the help of the Holy Spirit and became a man, but remember: before this event He was still God. While a man He was still God. After His death He was still God. After His resurrection He was still God, and today He is still God, and always will be.3. Are we to believe that Jesus—the human Jesus—was created at His conception? The human Jesus would never have been born without the Holy Spirit's help, so doesn't logic tell us that He was created?
Jesus was fully God and fully man, not half God and half man. When we worship Jesus, we are worshipping God Himself. Yahweh became incarnate in a human body. The worship of that human body does not mean we are worshipping a mere man, but God incarnated as man.4. If Jesus was created, then who are we worshipping? The human or the divine?
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
-
Kurieuo
- Honored Member
- Posts: 10038
- Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
- Location: Qld, Australia
Welcome to the boards Christian2,
You ask some deep questions the early Christians pondered over. Rather than respond to each of them, I'll attempt to provide you with some insights into the theology surrounding Christ's natures which should help you with your questions. It seems you tend to apply an approach to Christ, which eventually became known as the Nestorian heresy
after Nestorius, who is aligned with Antiochene thought.
The Antiochenes saw Christ as having to two essential natures, one divine and one human, viewed as two separate substances being conjoined together. An example would be if you put water and oil in a cup—the oil sits on top of the water and the two never become mixed. You have the two substances together, but they retain their distinction. Replace the oil and water in the one cup with Christ's humanity and divinity and you have the way Nestorians pictured Christ. So when it came to worshipping Christ, the Antiochenes tended to believe we worshipped his divine nature only. To illustrate this unorthodox thought through way of a diagram:
<pre> Human Divine
x ^
\ /
Christ
^
Worship
^
Us</pre>
On the other side you have the Alexandrians. They believe that there was one essential nature (i.e., underlying reality) which had two substances mixed into one. As an illustration, salt water contains two properties (salt and water) and the salt is dissolved into water. In thus way, they would say that Christ's humanity and divinity become mixed together to form one essential nature, and thus they can't be separated (although this is where the salt water analogy tends to fail). It is difficult to get across all the terminology of the original language used in early discussions, but the Alexandrians would essentially say that it is the Son (one underlying reality) who is worshipped, who a mix of two full natures that can't be separated. So when you worshipped the Son, both natures are apart of Him, and so it is not a matter of worshipping one nature or the other. Thus, Alexandrian thought is unlike the Antiochenes' which entails when someone worshipped the Son, they were actually worshipping His divine nature.
Eventually, at the Council of Chalcedon, the Definition of Chalcedon was formed to resolve this issue. I've attempted to provide you wish some insights, but really it gets deeper and the fact I'm trying to use English to explain the terminology used to refer to Christ's natures, essential nature, etc makes it difficult to get across.
Going onto something slightly new which is relevant to your question, is the word theotokos—a word Cyril (an Alexandrian) taught in reference to Mary. This word means "bearer of God" and so Cyril was using it to say Mary was literally "Mother of God." Cyril's theotokos is an outworking of another accepted phrase, the communicatio idiomatum. It was accepted that 1) Jesus is fully humans, and 2) Jesus is fully divine. Thus, the communicatio idiomatum was formed to designate that which was true of the humanity of Jesus must be also be true of his divinity, and vice versa.
So some examples would be:
<blockquote>Jesus Christ is God.
Mary gave birth to Jesus.
Therefore Mary is the Mother of God.
Jesus died on the cross.
Jesus is God.
Therefore God died on the cross.</blockquote>
Nestorius obviously didn't like this term as he thought it denied Christ's human nature (as remember he saw Christ as two natures conjoined, which essentially means each nature would retain their separate identity in Christ). Nestorius therefore offers up words of his own anthropotokos ("bearer of humanity") or even Christotokos ("bearer of the Christ"), although his denying theotokos didn't go down too well and so his own phrases weren't accepted over Cyril's theotokos.
Anyway, I hope what I've written may have helped you regarding how to see Christ's natures and so forth. I'll end here.
Kurieuo.
You ask some deep questions the early Christians pondered over. Rather than respond to each of them, I'll attempt to provide you with some insights into the theology surrounding Christ's natures which should help you with your questions. It seems you tend to apply an approach to Christ, which eventually became known as the Nestorian heresy
after Nestorius, who is aligned with Antiochene thought. The Antiochenes saw Christ as having to two essential natures, one divine and one human, viewed as two separate substances being conjoined together. An example would be if you put water and oil in a cup—the oil sits on top of the water and the two never become mixed. You have the two substances together, but they retain their distinction. Replace the oil and water in the one cup with Christ's humanity and divinity and you have the way Nestorians pictured Christ. So when it came to worshipping Christ, the Antiochenes tended to believe we worshipped his divine nature only. To illustrate this unorthodox thought through way of a diagram:
<pre> Human Divine
x ^
\ /
Christ
^
Worship
^
Us</pre>
On the other side you have the Alexandrians. They believe that there was one essential nature (i.e., underlying reality) which had two substances mixed into one. As an illustration, salt water contains two properties (salt and water) and the salt is dissolved into water. In thus way, they would say that Christ's humanity and divinity become mixed together to form one essential nature, and thus they can't be separated (although this is where the salt water analogy tends to fail). It is difficult to get across all the terminology of the original language used in early discussions, but the Alexandrians would essentially say that it is the Son (one underlying reality) who is worshipped, who a mix of two full natures that can't be separated. So when you worshipped the Son, both natures are apart of Him, and so it is not a matter of worshipping one nature or the other. Thus, Alexandrian thought is unlike the Antiochenes' which entails when someone worshipped the Son, they were actually worshipping His divine nature.
Eventually, at the Council of Chalcedon, the Definition of Chalcedon was formed to resolve this issue. I've attempted to provide you wish some insights, but really it gets deeper and the fact I'm trying to use English to explain the terminology used to refer to Christ's natures, essential nature, etc makes it difficult to get across.
Going onto something slightly new which is relevant to your question, is the word theotokos—a word Cyril (an Alexandrian) taught in reference to Mary. This word means "bearer of God" and so Cyril was using it to say Mary was literally "Mother of God." Cyril's theotokos is an outworking of another accepted phrase, the communicatio idiomatum. It was accepted that 1) Jesus is fully humans, and 2) Jesus is fully divine. Thus, the communicatio idiomatum was formed to designate that which was true of the humanity of Jesus must be also be true of his divinity, and vice versa.
So some examples would be:
<blockquote>Jesus Christ is God.
Mary gave birth to Jesus.
Therefore Mary is the Mother of God.
Jesus died on the cross.
Jesus is God.
Therefore God died on the cross.</blockquote>
Nestorius obviously didn't like this term as he thought it denied Christ's human nature (as remember he saw Christ as two natures conjoined, which essentially means each nature would retain their separate identity in Christ). Nestorius therefore offers up words of his own anthropotokos ("bearer of humanity") or even Christotokos ("bearer of the Christ"), although his denying theotokos didn't go down too well and so his own phrases weren't accepted over Cyril's theotokos.
Anyway, I hope what I've written may have helped you regarding how to see Christ's natures and so forth. I'll end here.
Kurieuo.
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)
-
RGeeB
- Established Member
- Posts: 211
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 5:31 am
- Christian: No
- Location: Surrey, England
Does anyone have an opinion on this?:
The resurrected and glorified Jesus is identified by his piercings. So, the preincarnate Christ (man who wrestled with Jacob) is different in appearance to the Christ who presented Himself to John the revelator.
Why did Jesus forbid some to touch Him after His resurrection, while He asked Thomas to feel his hands and feet?
The resurrected and glorified Jesus is identified by his piercings. So, the preincarnate Christ (man who wrestled with Jacob) is different in appearance to the Christ who presented Himself to John the revelator.
Why did Jesus forbid some to touch Him after His resurrection, while He asked Thomas to feel his hands and feet?
-
Kurieuo
- Honored Member
- Posts: 10038
- Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
- Location: Qld, Australia
My thoughts aren't entirely developed on this, but I personally believe that Christ would retain all the human qualities within Him after his ascension, that a human being would have when they die and are resurrected (I don't believe this necessarily entails our "human" physical form). The other question I think I see implied in your statements is whether Christ differed to his pre-incarnate form after his incarnation/resurrection? I haven't thought deeply on this, but I don't see Christ's essential nature eternally encompassing a human nature before the incarnation, although Christ remains the same person throughout both.RGeeB wrote:Does anyone have an opinion on this?:
The resurrected and glorified Jesus is identified by his piercings. So, the preincarnate Christ (man who wrestled with Jacob) is different in appearance to the Christ who presented Himself to John the revelator.
Didn't the Disciples also touch him? I don't recall this—who did He forbid to touch him?RGeeB wrote:Why did Jesus forbid some to touch Him after His resurrection, while He asked Thomas to feel his hands and feet?
Kurieuo.
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)
-
Christian2
- Advanced Senior Member
- Posts: 991
- Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 10:27 am
JAC3510, thank you
Thank you for your response. I asked these same questions of three Methodist ministers and I got somewhat different answers. Your response was the best and easiest to understand.
I am somewhat familiar with Monarchianism and Modalist Monarchianism. I've tried to study early Christianity. I also am a little familiar with the Oneness Movement. I was searching for some info on the Trinity and came across a long article, printed it out and read it. About half way through it, I started questioning what I was reading. The argument didn't sound right. I had never heard of Pentecostal Oneness before. I don't think that their position can be supported biblically.
Now on to your answers. I need further clarification if you have the interest or time. Please see my further questions.
My Question:
1. I think we all believe that the human body of Jesus died on the cross, but what about the Son of God as in the Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Did the Son die too?
Your response:
Further Question: How can the Son die when He is a spirit? When we die our souls do not die; only our human bodies die.
My Question:
2. If the Son died, then for a time did the Trinity only consist of Father and Holy Spirit?
Your response:
Further Question: Are you saying that the Son's death is only to be understood as His separation from the Father? If so, would this be like a person going to hell and being separated from God? That death would be a spiritual death, would it not?
I understand your responses to my items #3 and #4, agree, and have no further questions regarding these items.
I do, however, have another question about the Trinity. I have looked for an illustration that explains the Trinity concept and every one I come across falls short. Do you happen to have one that you think is good and understandable? I have found some that really support the Modalistic view—Water, steam and ice—three forms of water. The problem with this one is that water cannot be ice and steam at the same time, whereas, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are Father, Son and Holy Spirit at the same time.
What do you think of this one? I got it off the Internet and I don't know where I got it or if it is copyrighted.
God is ONE but God has three personalities—God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. And all these three personalities have different functions to perform but they are the same one God just as we have Soul, Mind and Body—three different components but together making one person. Father gives instruction. Son carries out the instructions. Holy Spirit conveys the message. So this amounts to reciprocal dealings between Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. It is very similar to our body communicating to mind and mind giving instruction to body.
Example: The moment you touch a very hot thing with your finger even without your knowledge you pull your hands back. You never know what is going on inside your body. But the signal was given from your fingers that, "it is very hot." The signal reaches the brain through the nervous system intimating that the fingers have touched a very hot thing. Now the brain thinks a little bit and gives a signal back to your finger, "Pull your hands back." This message is carried by the nervous system to your finger, and pulled your hand off. If the brain is not working properly then the signal cannot be interpreted correctly or if the nervous system is defective the signal cannot be carried through free from error. Think for a moment about God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. God gives instructions, Son obeys and Holy Spirit transmits messages both ways. So three of them work individually and as a unit and at the same time they are one God.
Thank you for helping me out.
Shalom
I am somewhat familiar with Monarchianism and Modalist Monarchianism. I've tried to study early Christianity. I also am a little familiar with the Oneness Movement. I was searching for some info on the Trinity and came across a long article, printed it out and read it. About half way through it, I started questioning what I was reading. The argument didn't sound right. I had never heard of Pentecostal Oneness before. I don't think that their position can be supported biblically.
Now on to your answers. I need further clarification if you have the interest or time. Please see my further questions.
My Question:
1. I think we all believe that the human body of Jesus died on the cross, but what about the Son of God as in the Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Did the Son die too?
Your response:
Yes, the Son actually died and was separated from the Father and Holy Spirit.
Further Question: How can the Son die when He is a spirit? When we die our souls do not die; only our human bodies die.
My Question:
2. If the Son died, then for a time did the Trinity only consist of Father and Holy Spirit?
Your response:
No. The Trinity still existed, but one of them was separated from the others. This is the great sacrifice of God. For the first time in ever, the love of God suffered loss. Remember that God is love, and He has perfect love within Himself as all the Person's love one another. However, at the death of Jesus, the Father was forced to turn His back on the Son and the Son took sin upon Himself. It is possibly the greatest mystery in all of Christianity: how can God die? But, He did . . . the Son was separated from the source of life for three days.
Further Question: Are you saying that the Son's death is only to be understood as His separation from the Father? If so, would this be like a person going to hell and being separated from God? That death would be a spiritual death, would it not?
I understand your responses to my items #3 and #4, agree, and have no further questions regarding these items.
I do, however, have another question about the Trinity. I have looked for an illustration that explains the Trinity concept and every one I come across falls short. Do you happen to have one that you think is good and understandable? I have found some that really support the Modalistic view—Water, steam and ice—three forms of water. The problem with this one is that water cannot be ice and steam at the same time, whereas, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are Father, Son and Holy Spirit at the same time.
What do you think of this one? I got it off the Internet and I don't know where I got it or if it is copyrighted.
God is ONE but God has three personalities—God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. And all these three personalities have different functions to perform but they are the same one God just as we have Soul, Mind and Body—three different components but together making one person. Father gives instruction. Son carries out the instructions. Holy Spirit conveys the message. So this amounts to reciprocal dealings between Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. It is very similar to our body communicating to mind and mind giving instruction to body.
Example: The moment you touch a very hot thing with your finger even without your knowledge you pull your hands back. You never know what is going on inside your body. But the signal was given from your fingers that, "it is very hot." The signal reaches the brain through the nervous system intimating that the fingers have touched a very hot thing. Now the brain thinks a little bit and gives a signal back to your finger, "Pull your hands back." This message is carried by the nervous system to your finger, and pulled your hand off. If the brain is not working properly then the signal cannot be interpreted correctly or if the nervous system is defective the signal cannot be carried through free from error. Think for a moment about God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. God gives instructions, Son obeys and Holy Spirit transmits messages both ways. So three of them work individually and as a unit and at the same time they are one God.
Thank you for helping me out.
Shalom
-
BavarianWheels
- Prestigious Senior Member
- Posts: 1806
- Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2004 12:09 am
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Day-Age
- Location: Southern California
-
Christian2
- Advanced Senior Member
- Posts: 991
- Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 10:27 am
BavarianWheels
Hello,
I don't know if this will help you understand or not but there is an interesting article on this subject at:
http://www.direct.ca/trinity/cleaning.html
God bless
I don't know if this will help you understand or not but there is an interesting article on this subject at:
http://www.direct.ca/trinity/cleaning.html
God bless
Jac, this came up at a study yesterday. Do you have any scripture to back this up other than Christ's quote of Psalms on the cross?Jac3510 wrote:However, at the death of Jesus, the Father was forced to turn His back on the Son and the Son took sin upon Himself. It is possibly the greatest mystery in all of Christianity: how can God die? But, He did . . . the Son was separated from the source of life for three days.
For one, why would God the Father be forced to turn from the Son. Both are always absolutely holy and the Son's holiness didn't force Him to turn his back on Himself (so to speak), so why would the Father be so forced?
Last edited by ttoews on Thu Nov 04, 2004 8:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Kurieuo
- Honored Member
- Posts: 10038
- Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
- Location: Qld, Australia
Re: JAC3510, thank you
Just I find the Venn diagram of three overlapping circles an interesting one. If you label the circles Son, Father, and Holy Spirit it represents each one as having their own identity, yet being apart of each other at the center.Christian2 wrote:I do, however, have another question about the Trinity. I have looked for an illustration that explains the Trinity concept and every one I come across falls short. Do you happen to have one that you think is good and understandable?
Kurieuo.
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)
-
Anonymous
Re: JAC3510, thank you
No, the Son is not part of the Father nor the Father is part of the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit is not part of the Son. They are three individual persons/beings in ONE UNITY. The oneness of God is one in unity and not in being as the traditional Trinity asserts.Kurieuo wrote:Just I find the Venn diagram of three overlapping circles an interesting one. If you label the circles Son, Father, and Holy Spirit it represents each one as having their own identity, yet being apart of each other at the center.Christian2 wrote:I do, however, have another question about the Trinity. I have looked for an illustration that explains the Trinity concept and every one I come across falls short. Do you happen to have one that you think is good and understandable?
Kurieuo.
How could there be one being with three persons? If there is only one being of God then the God-being who was crucufied on the cross was the being of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. But as we know, the being of the Father was not affected (i.e., the being of the Father was not crucified) when the Son was crucified.
-
Felgar
- Esteemed Senior Member
- Posts: 1143
- Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 9:24 am
- Christian: No
- Location: Calgary, Canada
So you're arguing against the Trinity? Man, good luck!
You are over-simplifying the nature of God here. Yes one being can be three, even though it makes no sense to us. His very existance supercedes our own dimensions... We are not able to comprehend His nature because we our bound in 3 (possibly 4 with time) dimensions. We cannot test, manipulate, or truly understand the realities of the other dimensions.
You are over-simplifying the nature of God here. Yes one being can be three, even though it makes no sense to us. His very existance supercedes our own dimensions... We are not able to comprehend His nature because we our bound in 3 (possibly 4 with time) dimensions. We cannot test, manipulate, or truly understand the realities of the other dimensions.
-
Christian2
- Advanced Senior Member
- Posts: 991
- Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 10:27 am
ThirdOption, my comments
Hi ThirdOption,
The Trinity teaches that there is One Being or essence/substance and only One Being or essence/substance and that within the One Being or essence/substance, there are three persons, Father, Son (Word) and Holy Spirit. The Father is not the Son; the Son is not the Father; the Holy Spirit is not the Father or the Son. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.
"Traditional Trinity" is (using Being) One Being whom we call God in three persons in perfect unity. This is not contradictory. While God is one and many at the same time, He is not one and many in the same sense. He is one in the sense of His essence but many in the sense of His persons. So there is no violation of the law of noncontradiction in the doctrine of the Trinity.
Some say how can God be one and three persons? 1+1+1=3, does it not? But the triunity of God is more like 1x1x1=1. In other words, we multiply, not add, the one God is three persons. His one essence has muliple personalities. There can be plurality within the unity and this is precisely what the Trinity is, a plurality of persons within the unit of one essence.
That the three members of the Trinity are distinct persons, and not one and the same person is clear from the fact that each person is mentioned in distinction from the other. The Father and the Son carried on conversatins with each other. The Son prayed to the Father and the Father spoke from heaven about the Son at His baptism and the Holy Spirit was present at the same time. This indicates that the three distinct persons coexist simultaneously.
I like to look at the Trinity as a triangle. Make one on paper. Put the Father at the top and the Son and Holy Spirit at the other two corners. Inside of the triangle write "Divine Nature." You can put a circle half way through the word "Son" which would denote His Human Nature. There are three "Who's" and One "What."
Thanks
The Trinity teaches that there is One Being or essence/substance and only One Being or essence/substance and that within the One Being or essence/substance, there are three persons, Father, Son (Word) and Holy Spirit. The Father is not the Son; the Son is not the Father; the Holy Spirit is not the Father or the Son. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.
Correct.No, the Son is not part of the Father nor the Father is part of the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit is not part of the Son.
"Traditional Trinity" is (using Being) One Being whom we call God in three persons in perfect unity. This is not contradictory. While God is one and many at the same time, He is not one and many in the same sense. He is one in the sense of His essence but many in the sense of His persons. So there is no violation of the law of noncontradiction in the doctrine of the Trinity.
Some say how can God be one and three persons? 1+1+1=3, does it not? But the triunity of God is more like 1x1x1=1. In other words, we multiply, not add, the one God is three persons. His one essence has muliple personalities. There can be plurality within the unity and this is precisely what the Trinity is, a plurality of persons within the unit of one essence.
That the three members of the Trinity are distinct persons, and not one and the same person is clear from the fact that each person is mentioned in distinction from the other. The Father and the Son carried on conversatins with each other. The Son prayed to the Father and the Father spoke from heaven about the Son at His baptism and the Holy Spirit was present at the same time. This indicates that the three distinct persons coexist simultaneously.
I like to look at the Trinity as a triangle. Make one on paper. Put the Father at the top and the Son and Holy Spirit at the other two corners. Inside of the triangle write "Divine Nature." You can put a circle half way through the word "Son" which would denote His Human Nature. There are three "Who's" and One "What."
Thanks