After reading many post about the existence or non existence of a God I wonder why The Trinity is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? If The father is spirit and spirit is not material or like the wind we can not see but feel. What is God Composed of?
Even horses are said to be spirited and I believe that spirited is a verb.
I hope this is the right place to ask this.
Monavis
Who says they’re separate?
They aren’t.
That’s the whole mystery… that God is three Persons but only one. Guess you could say us Christians believe in multiple personality.
Mystery indeed.
There is no rational, compelling basis for the Trinity in the bible. The evidence against the Trinity in the bible is overwhelming.
There are a few texts—and just a few-- that are often pointed to as evidence of the Trinity. When considered in their local contexts, and background, they wither. They must also stand in the face of the overall thrust, context and words of the bible as a whole and it’s respective authors. In this context, it is impossible, in my view, to find a case for the Trinity.
I have never seen a text used to support the Trinity that didn’t require the reader to begin with the belief that the Trinity was a reality. IOW, there are no texts that directly support the Trinity (Which in itself is compelling. What is more important than who God is?) Rather, one begins with a belief inth Trinity and then points to a scripture (the very, very few that can be pointed to…) and essentially says, “Look, God is a Trinity.”
Just as the Christian view of a burning Hell is a man-made fabrication—and borne of man made traditions, folklore, fiction and politics, so the Trinity is as well.
And didn’t thousands die fighting over whether the Holy Spirit came about through Jesus as opposed to always existing along with Jesus and his dad?
And didn’t thousands die fighting over whether the Holy Spirit came about through Jesus as opposed to always existing along with Jesus and his dad?
(Wasn’t some distinction such as that a vital difference between RC and Eastern Orthodoxy?)
I’ve never seen a criticism of the doctrine of the Trinity (except the one that flatly denies any supporting scripture for it, which isn’t so much a criticism as a dismissal) that didn’t start by misrepresenting the doctrine in some way (i.e. ‘three gods’ or ‘split personality’)
All three persons of the Trinity are spiritual in nature; The son being exceptional in that he was made incarnate.
Yeah, just like heaven.
There is a biblical basis for heaven, or rather, it’s existence.
What is less clear—and open to interpretation—is who inhabits it, who it’s designed for, whether humans go there, and if so which humans, whether there is/was ever an original plan for human to go there after death (which would suggest that the human experience was always supposed to be a transitory, temporary situation)etc etc.
At any rate, that’s another discussion. There’s certainly more verbiage in the bible to support the existence of heaven than there is for the Trinity.
OK, but there’s probably also more than there is to support notions such as the omnipotence or omnipresence of God…
Omnipotent, yes.
Omnipresent, no.
You might have to elaborate a bit there; it looks like you’re saying there’s more scripture for heaven than for omnipotence, but less for heaven than for omnipresence? Or are you just saying you don’t accept the arguments for one or the other?
There is also a biblical basis for hell. But so what, all evidence points to heaven, hell, the trinity and god being, as you put it “borne of man made traditions, folklore, fiction and politics.
Also if you don’t want this topic in this thread then you should not have brought it up, and yes if you want to continue to argue it, you are free to start a new thread.
To respond to the OP, it’s most helpful to me to regard the Father as that Aspect of the One God which is above & beyond (transcendent) Creation, the Son as that Aspect which communicates with Creation- most fully in the Incarnation, and the Spirit as that Aspect which is most intimately involved in (immanent) in Creation- to the point of indwelling God-begotten persons.
From the 28th chapter of Matthew:
If there was no Trinity, why did Christ instruct that his apostles baptize in the names of it?
Think of conjoined triplets.
If America is the land of the free, why don’t we get free beer? Be careful not to equivocate. Inasmuch as spirit is incorporeal, separation can only mean separation of will.
Yeah, the raindog did leave me wondering just what he understood the Trinity that he was arguing against to be.
There’s some interesting discussion in this old thread: Defend the Trinity.
Reminds me of a joke I heard on NPR last weekend: “How many Christians does it take to screw in a lightbulb?” Answer: 3, but they are really 1.
Steve’s explanation touches on a part of the problem in grasping the concept of “the procession of the Holy Spirit,” but there is a bit more to it than that.
Two distinct things are meant in Trinitarian theology by the term, and it’s important to distinguish between them: first, the ontological origin, and second, the sending, of the Holy Spirit. Both are, of course, capable of attack on the grounds that numerous people have already addressed in posts above. However, let me try to explain it on the presumption of Trinitarian theology – in other words, for the sake of grasping what is and is not said by the two viewpoints, let’s take as a “given” that they are talking about something real within their frame of reference. Certainly the place of Gitchi Manitou within the Weltanschaaung of philosophical Hinduism would be an interesting question, but of far more relevance to everyday discussions would be what the Hurons themselves meant by the name.
According to orthodox Trinitarianism, God consists of three discrete Persons united in one Godhead: neither three roles played by one God, nor three distinct Gods somehow mystically united – but one God manifesting himself as three persons. All three persons are equally God, equally not each other, equally eternal. There was never a time, on this approach, when God was one Person.
And yet, the Father is ontologically prior to the Son and Holy Spirit. He, the ultimate Ground of All Being, is what they owe their existence to. This has a nasty taste of “All persons of the godhead are created equal, but some are more equal than others.” However, it’s the way in which it’s understood. To construct an analogy: imagine placing a stack of three books on a table. There was never a time when one book was on the table but not the other two. Yet unquestionably the bottom book holds up the other two. Its presence is responsible for their position above the surface of the table. Likewise: the Son is as eternal as the Father, and the Holy Spirit as either of them. Both had roles in the Creation story: the Son as the Word of God through whom all things were made, the Spirit as hovering over the waters. Yet in a real sense, the Father is the source from which the Son was spiritually begotten, and the Holy Spirit proceeded, as of a breath exhaled. (Remember that only in English is it possible to verbally distinguish between spirit, breath, and wind – Greek, Latin, and Hebrew use the same words: *ruach, pneuma, spiritus *for all three.)
Hence the Orthodox insistence that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. However, Catholic theology has an interesting twist to this that I do not fully understand, and would hope that Sarah, tom~ or Bricker might be able to better expound. In their conception, the Spirit is generated as a consequence of the loving interaction of Father and Son.
It might be worth self-hijacking here for a second to address the idea of “begetting” in a divine context. And we need to do a little anthropology to get there. Remember that anyone who has ever been, or been intimate with, a male over the age of puberty is quite well aware of the ejaculation of semen. The ovum, on the other hand, is barely noticeable to the naked eye, and only if you are already aware of its existence and looking for it. In consequence, the view of procreation that prevailed in many primitive cultures is one where the male contributed the “seed” (semen) that grew into the child, the female being relegated to the role of place of fertile growth. More or less, “if you shoot your semen inside her, it will grow into a child in her fertile interior – but it’s your child; you’re the inseminating force that produces it.” (This of course has a lot of sexist results, which are worth going into elsewhere, but for now, grant the naive logic of the belief.)
A man might be a potter, carpenter, blacksmith. He takes stuff other than himself: clay, wood, iron, and shapes it into things other than himself. In contrast, in sexual intercourse, he takes that which is a part of himself, his semen, and causes the woman to produce something of the same sort as himself: his son or daughter. He makes the products of his trade; he begets his children. They are derived from and a part of him in a way that a crock, table, or sword is not.
It is crude and anthropomorphic to conceptualize God as shooting semen into Mary to produce Jesus. But, on the other hand, human beings are made by God, out, according to the myth, of the clay of the Earth, Adam from adamah, Edom (Esau) the Ruddy from edom, red clay. In contradistinction to this, God the Father’s causing of the Son is the creation of something of the same kind as Himself, a second Person of the godhead. The analogy to begetting as opposed to making is painfully obvious.
Okay, back to the Holy Spirit. In its ontological nature, it is the exhalation of God, the spirit/breath coming forth from him and giving life to all things. But in a quite different sense, the Spirit serves as “God acting within one” to believers through its indwelling starting at Pentecost (see Acts 2 for details). And this coming of the Spirit on believers is called for/prophesied at length by Jesus just before his own Crucifixion: “I will ask of the Father, and He will give you another Advocate to be with you forever: the Spirit of Truth, whom the world can never receive since it neither sees nor knows Him. But you know Him, because He is wiith you, He is in you.” (John 14:16-17)
It is very easy to confuse the ontological origin of the Holy Spirit as “proceeding from” the Father in that bizarre ontologically-prior-and-posterior concept, with the sending of the Spirit at Pentecost, done by the Father at Jesus (the Incarnate Son)'s behest.
Hence Eastern Orthodox and Western Catholicism and Protestantism have butted heads about this concept for a thousand years. There was, a few years ago, an agreed statement on the subject produced by a Catholic-Orthodox study group, though whether it will have any lasting effect on the dispute remains to be seen.
Now, everyone is of course free to reject the entire conceptual framework in which this distinguo is founded. But it would be useful if they understood what it is that’s being said and what is not being said, in the process.