I'm not a Trinitarian, but I understand the doctrine...oh...as well as such a mysterious doctrine can be understood. Same with Chalcedonian orthodoxy, the Dual Natures of Christ. So, I will herein give you my way of explaining the Trinity, etc.
For the sake of argument let's say that "God" is actually a personal Being as mainstream Christians maintain. This God could zap you and sends you back in time an hour. Then you culd walk up to yourself and carry on a conversation with yourself. Yet, there really is only ONE you, not two, though it would appear there are two of you. Then God could take the "two" and send them back another hour in time. There would then be “three” of you, but really only one. There would be one ousia (OOZ iah, essence) in the three distinct equal persons.
The Dubs I have sprung this on have gotten all bent out of shape and replied, "That's not in the Bible!" I replied, "No s*** Sherlock, but you were asking if the Trinity is taught in the Bible, and if so, how could such a Mystery be understood. So I gave you an illustration!" They remained bent out of shape and left. My illustration is not meant to be taken in such a way that God's three-in-one nature is the result of time travel, m'k? It's merely an illustration meant to open rusty minds to new possibilities, new ways of looking at problems.
As to the dual natures of Christ, this is actually simple when it comes to such matters, comparatively speaking. I don't know why it's worded in such a complex manner. The doctrine boils down to this: When Jesus was a zygote in Mary's womb, he was the same as any other human zygote. No more power or knowledge than any other zygote. Just "sinless.” Yet, at the same time, simultaneously, Jesus also existed as God the Son, an omnipotent omnipresent Spirit filling the universe and heaven. In other words, two simultaneous modes of existence. A human nature and human mode of existence, plus a Divine nature and Divine mode of existence. When Jesus prayed, it was his human nature and mode of existence praying to the Father, or perhaps to his own Divine nature.
Even as an adult human male Jesus didn't have any more power or knowledge than was normal for a man of his time, except when the Father revealed such knowledge to him or imparted power to him. So, these fundie fantasies of Jesus walking around in first century Palestine contemplating quantum mechanics and relativity theory are ridiculous. In his human nature/mode of existence Jesus was a man, and a man of his time. God incarnate, but a man nonetheless. There's always been a STRONG streak of Docetism in Christianity, a belief that the human nature of Jesus wasn't exactly REAL in some way or manner. This was condemned by the early Church as a heresy. The Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon hammered these problems out, and stated their solution in the Chalcedonian creed. circa 451 AD:
"Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us."
The language is complex but the actual understanding they're trying to impart is fairly simple, comparatively speaking as I said. One of the main problems for non-evangelical Christians who won't accept the Trinity is their strong rationalistic bias. If it doesn't make logical sense it must not be true. Well, what exactly is logical about a talking snake that is really a demon-possessed talking snake in an enchanted garden with two magic trees? That's logica??? There's NOTHING logical about ANY religion UNLESS one bites into its presuppositions. Then of course it has its own INTERNAL logic. But logic per se? No way Jose.
I can further destroy the fundagelical problem with logic by pointing out that light behaves like particles sometimes and like a wave at other times, depending on the experiment. So, the term "wavicles" has been coined. The problem is not solved by thinking of particles moving in waves. That's not it at all. A wave is an oscillation of the whole. A wave on the surface of the ocean is not pieces of ocean moving along the top, but is an oscillating motion of the entire ocean. Have you ever taken a long rug and snapped one end and watched the wave move along the rug? it wasn't "pieces of rug" moving along but an oscillation of the rug itself. The same with light. It is really neither particles nor a wave, nor both. It displays wave behavior under certain conditions and particle behavior under others, but it's actual nature is a mystery. It's completely beyond our logic and reason to grasp fully. Hence, light is referred to as wavicles.
The further one studies relatvity, quantum mechanics, and string theory the less "logical" the universe becomes. "Laws of nature" become statistical probabilities and there are "irrational" paradoxes aplenty. Rather, "supra-rational" in that they are above mere logic and reason. So, Aristotelian logic is not the end all and be all in determining truth. Human logic and reason are inadequate to grasping the true nature of light. How much more inadequate is it to grasping the true nature of God...if in fact such a Being exists? Any God that you can fit into your little mind and "understand" is nothing more than an idol of your imagination, existing only in your head. Made in your own image and likeness.
Leolaia should write a bit about the limitations of human language. Here's a quotation from the Gospel of Philip:
"Names given to worldly things are very deceptive, for they divert our thoughts from what is real to what is unreal. Thus one who hears the word "God" does not perceive what is real, but perceives what is unreal. So also with "the Father" and "the Son" and "the Holy Spirit" and "life" and "light" and "resurrection" and "the Church" and all the rest - people do not perceive what is real but they perceive what is unreal, unless they have come to Know the Real. The names which are heard in the world deceive."
Are you really so foolish as to think you truly comprehend eternity? Or infinity? That by understanding the word "God" you have thereby grasped God? If so you're foolish indeed. God help you.
Martin
the Mad Sub-Par Intellect