Understanding the Trinity

[Jac3510]

First, of note, it doesn't say "... and the Spirit of the Father." As a Person, The Holy Spirit is shown to also have a (collective?) name that shows He is also God. In all English Bibles I'm aware of, Holy Spirit is always capitalized (sometimes, as with the King James, as "Holy Ghost) - as this is not an attribute of God, but a Person within His Trinity. I do wonder if that verse could also be correctly translated as, "... in the nameS of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" - anyone know? Jac? Although that really wouldn't seem to change anything as to the meaning.

Actually it cannot be translated with a plural "names." The phrase "name of" equally governs all the objects--the father, the son, and the holy spirit. Given the grammar, there is only two ways to take the meaning.

1. Baptize people in the name of the Father (whatever that is), the name of the Son (whatever that name is), and the name of the Holy Spirit (whatever that name is). On this view, you would be baptizing in three different and distinct names. You could, then, not translate but paraphrase the verse to say "in the names of . . ."; or
2. Baptize people in the name that is the Father's, the Son's, and the Spirit's. That is, all three individuals have the same name, which is what makes them equal.

In any case, this is really strong proof of the Personhood and Divinity of the Holy Spirit. Impersonal forces don't have names. Impersonal forces don't have authority. We don't do things in the name of gravity or in the name of nuclear physics. We do things in the name of people, and by that, we mean by their authority. So when I give a gift the Holy Spirit Foundation in Jamaica in Jenna's name, I'm saying that I am acting on her behalf, and implicitly by her authority. For to act in someone's name is to assume their consent. To act in the name of a king is to act by his authority and to be his representative.

So it is with all three Persons. They all share the same name because they share the same authority. They share the same authority because they are the same substance, the same nature, which is the Divine Nature, of which there is only one (God).

[jenna]

i am finding it hard to understand or believe in something such as the trinity, when those who do believe in it cannot even agree with what it is! i have read the past posts, and they are confusing to say the least.

[RickD]

i am finding it hard to understand or believe in something such as the trinity, when those who do believe in it cannot even agree with what it is! i have read the past posts, and they are confusing to say the least.

Ikr!!

I have a hard time believing in God, because the billions of monotheists can't agree on what God is.

Some people think God has human attributes, like a face, hands, brain, heart, etc.

So, because some people don't understand God, He must not exist. In the same way people don't understand the Trinity, it must be false!

[PaulSacramento]

i am finding it hard to understand or believe in something such as the trinity, when those who do believe in it cannot even agree with what it is! i have read the past posts, and they are confusing to say the least.

Never confuse the different ways people express ANYTHING with disagreement on that thing.

Believer may have different ways of expressing heir views on the trinity ( or God as Rick pointed out) but that doesn't they don't agree they exist or that they are.

[Kurieuo]

i am finding it hard to understand or believe in something such as the trinity, when those who do believe in it cannot even agree with what it is! i have read the past posts, and they are confusing to say the least.

You're at a board where even the likes of people with your beliefs can post.

Further, there is most definitely widespread agreement of foundational doctrines to do with Trinitarian thought and Christ's nature. Attend a Christian seminary or college whether Catholic, Baptist, Anglican, Eastern Orthodox or like, and you'd see such. It has been largely settled in mainstream Christianity since the 4th century with the council of Nicaea and like.

Sadly, churches today prefer to preach messages of "Christian living", rather than espousing Scripture and good theology.

Further, I doubt crochet necessarily disagrees. There are Christians who just want God to remain a mystery, she appears to be one and that is well and good. As Jac responded to her though, God still can and will still remain mysterious, but it is important we define logically coherent doctrine so that we know we don't believe in contradictory nonsense. As Paul said, we should test and hold fast to that which is good. So it is great she agreed with Jac on that, and has shown some interest to develop her thinking with respect to God's nature.

As for ACB, me and him don't actually disagree at all. I just called him out to be more specific, he didn't appreciate it and dug in. Ask him yourself for clarity whether he disagrees with me regarding the Trinity. I bet he doesn't.

Also, I think you're being a bit short-sighted with such a smug comment. As I see it, you too have need to consider how Christ and the Father can be separate persons yet the one God. And, since you appear to reject mainstream Christian tradition (rejecting the Holy Spirit as a person, believing God has parts and the like), well, I wish you the best.

[Byblos]

As a matter of fact, if there's anything that we (as orthodox Christians in general) agree on at all, it would be the Trinity. Think of it this way Jenna, I am Catholic, on a board that is largely Protestant (for lack of better title). Which means we pretty much don't agree on anything, from fundamental doctrines of salvation and justification to whatever else you can think of. But we most certainly do agree on the Trinity because it is the clearest revelation from scripture, without which scripture is rendered into a string of contradictory mumbo-jumbo. That's the historical truth since the apostolic age.

[PaulSacramento]

As a matter of fact, if there's anything that we (as orthodox Christians in general) agree on at all, it would be the Trinity. Think of it this way Jenna, I am Catholic, on a board that is largely Protestant (for lack of better title). Which means we pretty much don't agree on anything, from fundamental doctrines of salvation and justification to whatever else you can think of. But we most certainly do agree on the Trinity because it is the clearest revelation from scripture, without which scripture is rendered into a string of contradictory mumbo-jumbo. That's the historical truth since the apostolic age.

I would add to this by saying:
I didn't agree with the trinity doctrine for the longest time ( it was confusing and my JW mother and sister add to the confusion with their misinterpretation and misunderstanding of the doctrine).
I studied for myself and began to see that there was something there.
As I learned more and eventually got my Masters in Theological studies, I quite logically and rationally arrived at the conclusion that the Trinity doctrine is not only biblical but quite correct.
As someone once said about evolution and biology:
Nothing in biology makes since outside of evolution.
We can say that, Nothing in Christian doctrine makes since outside the Fact that Father, Son and HS are GOD.

[Byblos]

Jenna, let's press reset and go back a bit to what we can necessarily conclude about the nature of God from the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Then we'll go further ahead one step at a time.

In conclusion, we have seen on the basis of both philosophical argument and scientific confirmation that it is plausible that the universe began to exist. Given the intuitively obvious principle that whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence, we have been led to conclude that the universe has a cause of its existence. On the basis of our argument, this cause would have to be uncaused, eternal, changeless, timeless, and immaterial. Moreover, it would have to be a personal agent who freely elects to create an effect in time. Therefore, on the basis of the kalam cosmological argument, I conclude that it is rational to believe that God exists.

You had asked a very important question which I will quote:

ok, then, so then what image are we created after? please note that an image being something you can see. if God is nothing more than an immensely powerful unembodied mind, then why did He choose the forms we are in now to make us IN HIS IMAGE? would He not choose an unembodied mind?

But before we attempt to answer that question we need to get past the conclusion of the KCA. Do you now see why it is very important to state that God is spirit, therefore immaterial, therefore cannot have form or shape? We'll get to the biblical language later but as a matter of philosophical (rational) principle, if we can't get past this point there is really no point in going forward. We can still discuss it further if need be, that's not an issue. But what I'm saying is we can't go forward with any other topic unless we get past this one.

[jenna]

Jenna, let's press reset and go back a bit to what we can necessarily conclude about the nature of God from the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Then we'll go further ahead one step at a time.

In conclusion, we have seen on the basis of both philosophical argument and scientific confirmation that it is plausible that the universe began to exist. Given the intuitively obvious principle that whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence, we have been led to conclude that the universe has a cause of its existence. On the basis of our argument, this cause would have to be uncaused, eternal, changeless, timeless, and immaterial. Moreover, it would have to be a personal agent who freely elects to create an effect in time. Therefore, on the basis of the kalam cosmological argument, I conclude that it is rational to believe that God exists.

You had asked a very important question which I will quote:

ok, then, so then what image are we created after? please note that an image being something you can see. if God is nothing more than an immensely powerful unembodied mind, then why did He choose the forms we are in now to make us IN HIS IMAGE? would He not choose an unembodied mind?

But before we attempt to answer that question we need to get past the conclusion of the KCA. Do you now see why it is very important to state that God is spirit, therefore immaterial, therefore cannot have form or shape? We'll get to the biblical language later but as a matter of philosophical (rational) principle, if we can't get past this point there is really no point in going forward. We can still discuss it further if need be, that's not an issue. But what I'm saying is we can't go forward with any other topic unless we get past this one.

let me ask you this, then. do you believe in ghosts? i.e, spirits of the dead? while i personally have never seen one, i have heard one speak to me. kind of scary actually.

[Byblos]

Jenna, let's press reset and go back a bit to what we can necessarily conclude about the nature of God from the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Then we'll go further ahead one step at a time.

In conclusion, we have seen on the basis of both philosophical argument and scientific confirmation that it is plausible that the universe began to exist. Given the intuitively obvious principle that whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence, we have been led to conclude that the universe has a cause of its existence. On the basis of our argument, this cause would have to be uncaused, eternal, changeless, timeless, and immaterial. Moreover, it would have to be a personal agent who freely elects to create an effect in time. Therefore, on the basis of the kalam cosmological argument, I conclude that it is rational to believe that God exists.

You had asked a very important question which I will quote:

ok, then, so then what image are we created after? please note that an image being something you can see. if God is nothing more than an immensely powerful unembodied mind, then why did He choose the forms we are in now to make us IN HIS IMAGE? would He not choose an unembodied mind?

But before we attempt to answer that question we need to get past the conclusion of the KCA. Do you now see why it is very important to state that God is spirit, therefore immaterial, therefore cannot have form or shape? We'll get to the biblical language later but as a matter of philosophical (rational) principle, if we can't get past this point there is really no point in going forward. We can still discuss it further if need be, that's not an issue. But what I'm saying is we can't go forward with any other topic unless we get past this one.

let me ask you this, then. do you believe in ghosts? i.e, spirits of the dead? while i personally have never seen one, i have heard one speak to me. kind of scary actually.

Personally I don't. But if you're asking if the spiritual realm can have an effect, a real impact of some sort, on the material realm, then the answer is yes. For example, I do believe in the communion of the saints whereas intercessory prayers are efficacious in aligning our wills with God's. But that's whole 'nother subject so let's not get distracted with different rabbit trails, let's focus on one topic at a time so it doesn't get too overwhelming for you.

[jenna]

Jenna, let's press reset and go back a bit to what we can necessarily conclude about the nature of God from the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Then we'll go further ahead one step at a time.

In conclusion, we have seen on the basis of both philosophical argument and scientific confirmation that it is plausible that the universe began to exist. Given the intuitively obvious principle that whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence, we have been led to conclude that the universe has a cause of its existence. On the basis of our argument, this cause would have to be uncaused, eternal, changeless, timeless, and immaterial. Moreover, it would have to be a personal agent who freely elects to create an effect in time. Therefore, on the basis of the kalam cosmological argument, I conclude that it is rational to believe that God exists.

You had asked a very important question which I will quote:

ok, then, so then what image are we created after? please note that an image being something you can see. if God is nothing more than an immensely powerful unembodied mind, then why did He choose the forms we are in now to make us IN HIS IMAGE? would He not choose an unembodied mind?

But before we attempt to answer that question we need to get past the conclusion of the KCA. Do you now see why it is very important to state that God is spirit, therefore immaterial, therefore cannot have form or shape? We'll get to the biblical language later but as a matter of philosophical (rational) principle, if we can't get past this point there is really no point in going forward. We can still discuss it further if need be, that's not an issue. But what I'm saying is we can't go forward with any other topic unless we get past this one.

let me ask you this, then. do you believe in ghosts? i.e, spirits of the dead? while i personally have never seen one, i have heard one speak to me. kind of scary actually.

Personally I don't. But if you're asking if the spiritual realm can have an effect, a real impact of some sort, on the material realm, then the answer is yes. For example, I do believe in the communion of the saints whereas intercessory prayers are efficacious in aligning our wills with God's. But that's whole 'nother subject so let's not get distracted with different rabbit trails, let's focus on one topic at a time so it doesn't get too overwhelming for you.

it wasnt a rabbit trail. the reason why i asked was because these spirits have shape and form, but are still immaterial. but if you do not believe in them, then it is a useless point anyway.

[Byblos]

let me ask you this, then. do you believe in ghosts? i.e, spirits of the dead? while i personally have never seen one, i have heard one speak to me. kind of scary actually.

Personally I don't. But if you're asking if the spiritual realm can have an effect, a real impact of some sort, on the material realm, then the answer is yes. For example, I do believe in the communion of the saints whereas intercessory prayers are efficacious in aligning our wills with God's. But that's whole 'nother subject so let's not get distracted with different rabbit trails, let's focus on one topic at a time so it doesn't get too overwhelming for you.

it wasnt a rabbit trail. the reason why i asked was because these spirits have shape and form, but are still immaterial. but if you do not believe in them, then it is a useless point anyway.

No, it's fine, if you think it is related to the topic then by all means. Assuming they exist, why do you think spirits/ghosts have form? I've already acknowledged it is quite possible for the spiritual realm to have an impact on the material realm but it does not follow that the spiritual realm must have form.

[jenna]

what i am trying to say here is that it is possible for spirit to have form, but still be immaterial. another analogy would be a hologram. maybe a bad comparison, idk, but it has form and shape that you can see, but it is still immaterial.

[Byblos]

what i am trying to say here is that it is possible for spirit to have form, but still be immaterial. another analogy would be a hologram. maybe a bad comparison, idk, but it has form and shape that you can see, but it is still immaterial.

That's a contradiction in terms. By definition the immaterial is formless for if it has a form (i.e.the form is visible or can be felt) then it can be defined and if it can be defined then it is NOT immaterial. There is a reason you're unable to come up with a suitable example, it is because the idea is mutually contradictory and, therefore, irrational. P.S. a hologram is not immaterial, it is composed of light particles and occupies space-time. What is an illusion is what the hologram represents.

Post edit: By 'defined' I mean as to composition.

[jenna]

what i am trying to say here is that it is possible for spirit to have form, but still be immaterial. another analogy would be a hologram. maybe a bad comparison, idk, but it has form and shape that you can see, but it is still immaterial.

That's a contradiction in terms. By definition the immaterial is formless for if it has a form (i.e.the form is visible or can be felt) then it can be defined and if it can be defined then it is NOT immaterial. There is a reason you're unable to come up with a suitable example, it is because the idea is mutually contradictory and, therefore, irrational. P.S. a hologram is not immaterial, it is composed of light particles and occupies space-time. What is an illusion is what the hologram represents.

Post edit: By 'defined' I mean as to composition.

so if I am reading this correctly, if something is immaterial, it cannot be defined, (i.e visible or felt)? God can be defined, He can be visible, and He can be felt.