Trinitarian Analogies Leave Me Both Hungry and Thirsty!
An Egg - Although an egg is one object, it has three main components right? The shell. The white. The yolk. Are the three separate components of an egg “co-equal” in quality to one another? Or in composition? Or in use? No. As far as their shelf life, when an egg goes bad, the shell isn't rotten, but the stuff inside it is. The shell takes far longer to break down than the yolk or white, so the time factor is not equal here. The only way the egg analogy fits the Trinity is in that the shell of an egg is not the same as the white, or the yolk, etc. Each one is different in the quality of its nature and also serves different unequal roles. Although there is only one egg to be sure, there are still three components that make up the egg, that means we still see quantity. And so, since this analogy doesn't fit the Trinity definition, it's a fail.
A crumb pie - Is this any better? Not really. Yes, there are three separate components that form the whole pie, but the bottom crust is a uniform buttery pastry that cradles the glorious crimson of the sweet/tart cherry filling which provides the pie with its mouth watering pop of flavor. And the sugary crumb topping serves its purpose by loosely sealing in the cherry goodness. Wait - -I don't know about you, but this is making me hungry! Again, these separate components of a pie are not the same in their function, so they are not co-equal, nor are they equal in their composition. The only case this analogy proves (like the egg) is that there are three components that make up a pie. Big deal. Scripture is totally void of any concept of three components, or "persons" making up the Godhead anyway. This is a quantity issue once more (three separate components) and so, like the egg analogy, the pie analogy is also a fail.
Water - The only analogy that seems the closest fit for God's supposed Triune nature is that of water. No matter which of the three states (liquid, solid, or gas) that water takes, it's still water, and so they are co-equal in that respect, that of composition. Even so, in what way is the state (or quality) of ice equal to the state of steam? One is a cold solid, while the other is a hot vapor. They have different physical "qualities," so they are not the same, or equal in that regard. Another fail.
So, as you can see, based on these analogies, the concept of a “co-equal”, “co-eternal” three separate persons being known as "God" is very flawed at the most, or not well defined at the least, but I say it is both! Based on the 1st and 2nd commandments of the Old Testament, God shall not be likened unto anything, or anyone other than Jesus as taught in the New Testa-ment, otherwise you are practicing idolatry. God's true divine nature, or his essence of being involves the "Omni's" and none of these analogies addresses this biblical concept. Even so, this argument of quantity vs. quality keeps rearing its ugly hydra like heads!
"Each (this implies more than one)has His nature, the entire Divine nature, which is quality, not quantity: Each is truly God. Each is necessarily and eternally one in Being with The Others (more than one): there are not three Gods. Each is not the Others; There are three Persons." (Emphasis mine)
Quality Vs. Quantity
See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces of this world rather than on Christ. 2 Colossians 2:8 [emphasis mine]
Let no one keep defrauding you of your prize by delighting in self-abasement and the worship of the angels, taking his stand on visions he has seen, inflated without cause by his fleshly mind, 19 and not holding fast to the head, from whom the entire body, being supplied and held together by the joints and ligaments, grows with a growth which is from God. 20 Since you died with Christ to the elemental spiritual forces of this world, why, as though you still belonged to the world, do you submit to its rules: 2 Colossians 2:18-20
Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God's wrath comes on those who are disobedient. Eph. 5:6 [emphasis mine]
Plotinus. Philosopher. Theologean?
You see, Jesus doesn't leave his lambs in limbo, he reveals himself to those who will be his sheep. Remember Abraham? Moses? Cornelius? Jesus personally appeared to Abraham and Moses. Did the Lord Jesus leave Cornelius in the dark regarding salvation, or did he send Peter to him? How about the Ethiopian Eunuch? Jesus sent Philip. How about the murder Saul of Tarsus? Jesus knocked him off his horse and set him straight. He even sent Ananias to him. Or the man from Macedonia that Paul saw in a dream? Paul got there as soon as he could! This nonsense of being an unknowing Christian was made up by men like Justin Martyr, who sought to justify their love of pagan philosophy. Neo-Platonism is pagan philosophy.
Speaking of which, just read Plotinus' nonsense about beauty and ugliness
here by his photo. Now, I ask you, "Is a man who has self knowingly dedicated his life to killing others for the sake of killing (and loves doing it) beautiful?" According to Plotinus he is. A murder (as described) would detest the concept of saving a life, it would not be true to his being, and so according to Plotinus, if this murderer (by some strange means) saved a life, he would be ugly. But perhaps I'm being too crude. Perhaps he means that there is, in a way, a kind of beauty in being honest with oneself, as opposed to the ugly business of deluding yourself.
But why does Plotinus consider "Being" and "Beauty" worthy of being proper nouns? I guess I have more reading to do, because I don't know. In my dictionary, being and beauty are not proper nouns. And exactly how is "being" identical to "beauty?" Other than they are both nouns, I fail to see a connection. I think beauty is loved by beings because God made us to love beauty. And let's not forget how beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
I can see why these men are just as Paul described them, ever learning but never coming to the knowledge of the truth. Plotinus, when you study his work, appears to be a sort of Trinity middle man, because of his ideas about The One and achieving Henosis, or a mystical union with the One. Mystical union with the one? Is that like the pagan alchemical marriage leading to godhood? Apparently so. That lie that Satan told in the garden is so versatile isn't it? Dear reader, Plotinus was no theologian for Christ, but rather Plato's flimflam man. Their philosophical garbage was adopted by the so-called church fathers, men who mixed their piddly reasoning with Scripture. This is a well documented fact. That heinous act makes the so-called church fathers agents of Satan, rather than making the pagan philosophers Christians. In fact, I don't think Plotinus, or others like him would be too keen on being seen as Christians, unknowing, or otherwise.
I shouldn't be the least surprised by this kind of syncretism, since it still happens to this day. As a little girl, I remember how pastors tried to make George Lucas' Star Wars out to be based on the Bible. In reality, it's based on Mormonism, and eastern mysticism. How about Anglican/Catholic C.S. Lewis' Narnia series? Is it based on Christ? No way Jose! It's based on Norse and other pagan mythologies. Lewis, who prayed for dead people and received last rights upon his death bed, was admittedly drawn to pagan concepts his whole life, his greatest love being the Norse myths. He never officially linked his Narnia series with the Bible, but he didn't discourage the link others made, either. You tend to sell more books that way. Okay, how about Roman Catholic J.R.R. Tolkin's The Hobbit novels? Christ based, right? Nope! This series was started with an idea that popped into his head, and is peppered with Celtic, Norse, and Saxon mythologies. Sorry folks, just because our flesh likes something, that doesn't mean we should try to make it Christian.
God Doesn't Run For Office
For a more American analogy, Sports fans will concede to this concept (one person holding greater and lesser titles/offices) in relation to the business end of their favorite sport. For example: control freak Dallas Cowboys' owner, Jerry Jones, occupies the office of General Manager. Could he hold other management positions while being the same person? Yes, of course he can. In this case, I think it would be wise for him to divvy up these responsibilities, as he can't possibly do all these jobs well. Even so, the owner can still perform both of these jobs, only his position of "owner" supersedes that of G.M., meaning he can't legally hire a person to own the team. Jesus (our Mighty God and Everlasting Father) is our creator, he made everything and therefore owns everything, and he doesn't have our limitations. So, all of the titles of office that he holds (with their differing levels of authority) are perfectly executed without any difficulties. Is the concept of true monotheism starting to make sense? I hope so.
Our Heavenly Father wants us to know him, to know that he is only one God, not the false Triune God we are told exists. No silly food, or drink analogies are needed to explain this. And no vain human philosophy can come close to his truth. This is the truth I have come to see, and know. I am grateful to Jesus for opening my eyes and ears to the truth, as it has completely set me free from Neoplatonic "Christianity," which runs rampant and nearly completely unchecked in the body of Christ. It took a while, but fortunately for me, he is very patient, persistent, and even a little tough with those he loves. Amen!