I still find it very confusing as God is said to be a spirit, Mary was said to conceive by the Holy Spirit,which would make the Holy Spirit father of Jesus, and I find it further confusing how God the Father was called father by Jesus. I interpet it to mean that Jesus had a Father before He became man. If he was always with the Father and He and the Father are one (as he was quoted In the New Testement),I wonder why He would need to send the Spirit as He could have just gave it to the Apostles; why would He need to become spirit again when he ascended into Heaven. Didn’t the Bible state that the Spirit came on the apsotles in the form of a dove?
If the Father is Spirit and is one but separate from the Holy Spirit how can this be?
Monavis
I think this is one of those cases where the grammar matters. Jesus did not say “in the names of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirt”, it was “in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” One name, not three. Look at the beginning of John- “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.” Jesus of course is the Word, and the Word was there from the beginning. There never was the Father without the Son.
Christian theology in all it’s forms sure can get confusing. Often I think the reason certain beliefs are embraced is because humans are trying to grasp and describe something that is beyond them to understand and they force it into a concept they can understand. IMHO it’s not necessary to fully understand or force beliefs into certain models to grasp the essence. We still see through a glass darkly and we do not know as we are known 1 Cor. 11-13 It is enough to seek that spirit that Jesus said would guide us into all truth and seek the inner transformation that Jesus spoke of. The rest of the details will be added as needed.
When John Baptized Jesus the Holy Spirit descended like a dove, in Mat, and Mark, and John. Luke uses the term bodily form like a dove.
In Acts the spirit came to the Apostles as tongues of fire in Acts 2. Neither of these need to be taken literally.
Some interpret the HS as our connection with God while in these mortal bodies. Our source of communion and inspiration. The details of how they are separate and how they are one might be interesting discussion but I think Jesus stressed a unity of purpose above all.
Eis to onoma tou patros kai tou niou kai tou hagiou pneumatos.
Literally, “In the name of the father, and of the son and of holy spirit.”
In Greek this does not suggest that a singular name should be applied to all three entities. If that were the case, the kai construction would place the first Greek kai before the first noun to be included (tou patros).
Lib’s translation is literally completely accurate but kanicbird’s is slightly better at conveying the sense intended by the Greek. These are expressed as separate enties (and separate names).
Paradise, not necessarily the same thing as Heaven. (Luke 16 suggests it is right next to Sheol/Hades, classical C’tian theology has envisioned it as the pleasant sector of Sheol/Hades).
I Peter 3:18-20 suggests He was in Sheol/Hades proclaiming His victory over sin & death, with 4:5 going so far as suggesting that those dead shades held there were also being evangelized. Totally consistent with Luke’s “this day in Paradise” if one regards it as the better neighborhood of Hades.
IMO, you guys may be getting too literal in ascribing meaning to “in the name of” – my understanding is that when X acts “in the name of” Y (usually God) in Scripture, what he is doing is carrying out the commandments of Y, following the will of Y, acting as agent of Y, doing as Y would have done.
For an offended Christian to pray, “…And may Der Trihs be cast into Hell and eternal torture, in the name of Jesus. Amen” is not following Jesus’s instructions on how to treat others, even those who would be one’s enemies, and that “in the name of” has no effect – he’s not acting in accord with Jesus’ will. (Or, to be more accurate, no effect on Der Trihs – the effect is somewhat akin to the childhood counter-taunt about mirrors and glue.)
I have little time, as I’m going out of town. I hope to join the discussion on a day or 2 when I am settled.
To answer youur question, it is my view that the Trinity is a doctrine and tradition that spans 1600 years (more or less) and is practiced by many Christian denominations. It’s also my view that this doctrine has no bibical basis, and like Christmas, Easter, and Hellfire (among others…) borrows heavily from pagan religions, folklore, and human politics.
That being said, The Trinity Doctrine is perhaps the most firmly entrenched belief among those who identify themelves as Christian. It has a long, rich tradition and has been codified in Church Law and Dogma for centuries. It is central to many people’s belief as to who God is. Further, this doctrine elevates Jesus to God. (as in Soveriegn Lord God; The One True God) There is no one more important to mainstream Christian theology than Jesus Christ, and the belief that Jesus may not be God (as opposed to a separate, created being; the Son of God) would be extremely unsettling to almost all Trinitarians. We have been taught to pray to Jesus, —and even to Mary—, to worship him, to see him as the Sovereign Lord Jehovah God—or the the equivalent of God.
This belief is the very bedrock of many people’s belief in God. To say that “Jesus is not [the One True] God” would undermine many people’s beliefs is an understatement of epic proportions.
So people are taught this from infancy, by well intentioned preachers and parents who learned it the same way. It is fundamental, and goes unchallenged.
So we begin with this belief and then go looking for it’s validation, no matter how tenuous or absurd the example.
I’m not picking on BobLibDem, but in the cite he provided he appears oblivious to the distinction of 2 separate beings—one with authority and the power to confer it, and one who accepts it—and goes to the unsupported inference that the singular “name” versus “names” is sure indication of the Trinity. It is a doctrine looking for it’s validation.
Similarly, Polycarp gives us a very compelling description of The Trinity Doctrine. I believe that it is a result of the long, rich tradition of the doctrine, and Polycarp’s written skills, that it is as compelling as he describes it. Yet, as elegant as he writes, it is not supported in the bible.
In fact, the evidence is firmly to the contrary: The people who served the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob would have scoffed at the Trinity. Jesus himself universally subordinated himself to his God; the apostles never mentioned it; the earliest church makes no mention of it—the list goes on and on and on. I’m comfortable in saying that the texts that stand in contrast and opposition to the Trinity number in the thousands. Yet in the face of overwhelming evidence we will split hairs over “name” vs “names” in Matt 28, or the indefinate article in John 1:1.
Lastly, I will say this: It is not my intent to undermine anyone’s beliefs. I am simply saying the the Trinity Doctrine has a non-biblical basis or foundation. Further research (and one need not become a bible scholar) indicates that this doctrine likely came from pagan religions, folklore and human politics.
I do not take issue with the raindog’s assertion – but I do disagree with its implications.
I don’t think anyone reputable has ever suggested that Paul, James, Peter, Barnabas, Luke, et al. adhered to the Thomistic Dogma of the Holy Trinity, as explicated in the Athanasian Creed, given metaphysical structure in the Summa, etc.
And, hard as this may come to staunch Protestants and people who base their understanding of Christianity on conservative Protestant doctrine, whether something is “Biblical” has very little to do with whether it’s validly Christian.
First, the Church decided which among the plethora of gospels, epistles, apocalypses, sermons, visionary accounts, etc., that were circulating in the first three centuries, were reliable accounts/writings with relation to the faith once given. As polemicists on both sides will aver to their own ends, this job was actually not finished until the Council of Trent – if then; the Orthodox Churches have never formally accepted a canon, though the Septuagint plus standard Western New Testament is what they universally use.
The Church validates the Bible, not the other way around. The fact that we have a badly fragmented Church with myriads of disagreements today does not obfuscate the fact that during the era when the canon was being settled, there was one unified body, manifold in viewpoint but agreed on basic principles and acting in unity, which ended up being the group that concurred on the canon of Scripture.
Having said that much, the evolution of the Trinity parallels that which the raindog rightly notes happened in other faith traditions – a philosophical unity among divergent entities was postulated to resolve a paradox. This is precisely what happened in “scholastic” Hinduism, with Brahma, Siva, and Vishnu seen as manifestations of a common underlying unity (Brahman).
It worked like this:
[ul][li]The Jews believed in one God; it’s the absolute core doctrine of their faith. Cf. the Shema.[/li][li]Jesus taught of, worshipped, and prayed to that God as His Father.[/li][li]Only God is Lord.[/li][li]Jesus is Lord.[/li][li]Jesus is not the Father.[/li][li]Paul refers to Jesus as God.[/li][li]The Holy Spirit is God working within the individual.[/li][li]The Holy Spirit points the way to God.[/li][li]Jesus said that He would ask God to send the Holy Spirit.[/li][li]Therefore the Holy Spirit is neither the Father nor Jesus.[/li][li]But the Holy Spirit is God.[/li][li]Hence we have three entities which are not each other, but which are each individually God.[/li][li]But God is one.[/li][li]So in some manner the three Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are one God.[/ul][/li]
Now, distinguish for a minute between the “reality of the Trinity” and the Dogma of the Holy Trinity. The first is the simple paradoxical statement: Jesus, His Father, and the Holy Spirit whom they sent, are distinct individuals, each God. But there is only one God. So somehow the three are one.
If you happen to be brought up in a society where Greek philosophical concepts underlie most scholarship, it’s the most obvious thing in the world to apply Aristotelian conceptualization to that paradox, and come out with the “three hypostases in one ousia” (if you prefer Latin, “tres personae in una substantia”) dogmatic concept.
What a Trinitarian Christian is obliged to accept is this: The Father is God. Jesus is God. The Holy Spirit is God. The Father is not Jesus, and neither of them is the Holy Spirit. But there is only one God.
What he is encouraged to do, sometimes to the point of insisting it’s a doctrinal requirement, is to accept the metaphysics of the Dogma of the Trinity as an explanation for how this can be true.
What Paul et al. worked with was a basic concept: “Jesus is Lord.” “In seeing Jesus, we see God.” They didn’t shoot for a philosophical explanation of how this could be true – enough to say that they worshipped one God who showed Himself in three discrete ways. Like Schrodinger’s cat, they were pleased to acknowledge three people as God and simultaneously avow that there was one God, and let the quantum uncertainty remain unresolved. The flowering of the philosophical doctrine came much later.
No. As I said, it would be “in the name of the Father, and of the son, and of the Holy Spirit”. All constructions are genitive (English “of” or “from” or “'s” [possessive]). One name — three objects.
Thank you, Friar Ted for that succinct illumination, and Polycarp, as well, for your extensive commentary here. Very helpful for my understanding this concept.
My spiritual path has been Buddhist, but, of course, greatly respect any spiritual tradition, and want to understand what each has to offer.
So, do i have this kind of right in basic Christian terms; Trinity is: God as the overarching transcendent force of all being; Son/Jesus as the human incarnation of God, with all sight of God, and Holy Spirit as the active mediating, and permeating, force between the two states of human and Divine. (I think it would help a great deal to not think of the Trinity as ‘’ persons’’. ) All three are welded together as facets of Divine action, as much as we can fathom with limited understanding.
The fact that neither the pre-Christian Jews, who would have found the Trinity apostasy, or the Apostles of Jesus would have subscribed to the Trinity Doctrine should give every one of us pause, especially as the Jews and Jewish Christians were an intolerant group as it related to perversions to the written law.
Who are we to presume to practice Christianity in a way that is inconsistent with the Christianity practiced by both Christ and his direct followers?
This parargraph, and the 2 that follow, are fundamental to the legitimacy (or in the alterntaive, the illegitimacy) of the Trinity Doctrine.
What is the basis for Christians to determine what is “Christian”? In other words, what defines Christianity?
I would agree with all of this, but make this distinction: Every Single Major Translation is consistent in it’s handling of the Trinity; to wit: Not one speaks of it. Not one.
Even the Catholic Douay bible—presumably the bible friendliest to the Trinity— is deafening in it’s silence on the matter.
Lastly, during this winnowing process you describe—a winnowing process that has produced the canon that is in common use----I am wholly unaware of any texts that indicate that the Trinity was somehow edited out of the bible that we commonly use. There was never a time, and never a written law that embraced the Trinity. There isn’t a single translation of the bible (or Law) going back 4000 years that supports the Trinity.
This too I think is central to whether the Trinity is legitimate or not.
What is the answer to the dichotomy? Does the bible validate the church? Or, does the church validate the bible?
The example of those who not only wrote the bible, but who lived it, serve as an example for us.
Among the pre-Christian Jews, it’s hard to envision a society that hewed closer to it’s written law. The laws governed every part of Jewish life. When the Israelite Nation grew too large for Moses to handle alone, God himself is reported to have ditrected Moses to select 70 capable men to help him govern. How was this church/state/theocracy to govern? By strict adherance to the Mosaic Law. In every single instance where an Israelite leader deviated from the written law there was consequence. Whether Aaron’s Golden Calf (which was ostensibly a festival to Jehovah after all…), or David’s illegal census, or Saul’s presumptuous offering of prayer before battle (a function he was not permitted to perform) there was severe consequence for deviation from the law. Does Deuteronomy 6 sound as if the Church validated the Law or did the Law validate the Church?:
There is simply no doubt that the Israelite nation was governed by it’s Law and no latitude was given to the church to use personal discretions.
Was the Christian movement any less intent on keeping God’s laws, and as importantly, did Jesus—or Paul for example—teach that a Christian (or collectively, the Christian Church…) could simply deviate from scripture based on those reasonings? Jesus saved some of his harshest criticisms for those who wouldn’t follow the Law, and particularly those would “game” the Law.
[quote]
It worked like this:
[ul][li]The Jews believed in one God; it’s the absolute core doctrine of their faith. Cf. the Shema.[/li][li]Jesus taught of, worshipped, and prayed to that God as His Father.[/li][li]Only God is Lord.[/li][li]Jesus is Lord.[/li][li]Jesus is not the Father.[/li][li]Paul refers to Jesus as God.[/li][li]The Holy Spirit is God working within the individual.[/li][li]The Holy Spirit points the way to God.[/li][li]Jesus said that He would ask God to send the Holy Spirit.[/li][li]Therefore the Holy Spirit is neither the Father nor Jesus.[/li][li]But the Holy Spirit is God.[/li][li]Hence we have three entities which are not each other, but which are each individually God.[/li][li]But God is one.[/li][li]So in some manner the three Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are one God.[/ul] [/li][/quote]
I don’t doubt the progression here, or the rationale. I would first note a couple things. First, “god” is a bible term that is used to describe humans, Jesus, inanimate objects including idols, and even Satan. Yet when god is used to describe the The One True God, the Sovereign of the Universe, there is always a distinction made.
Also, “lord” is also used similarly. Even Sarah referred to Abraham as “Lord.” It is a common practice in bible translations to use small capital letters when the tetragrammaton (God’s proper name) existed in the original text. (although I’m not sure that this is a universal practice) At any rate, like the cite above, small cap “Lord” or “God” is distinction for The One True God.
At any rate, Jesus taught of, worshipped, and prayed to that God as His Father.
True. Why this isn’t “End Of Story, thanks for coming folks”, I do not know.
Only God is Lord.
Not true. There are many Lords. Only Lord God Jehovah God is defined as the Sovereign Lord, but the bible indicates even Abraham as [a] Lord.
Jesus is Lord.
True. And “Teacher”, “Rabbi”, “Prince of Peace”, “Son of God”, “Firstborn of all Creation”, “Son of Man” and others. Yet he is never designated as “Lord” in the same way that Jehovah is designated “Lord.”
Jesus is not the Father.
Why this isn’t End of Story baffles me.
Paul refers to Jesus as God. No he does not.Not once. Like the previous cit in Philipians, Jesus is described to be in close communion with Jehovah, as having God-like qualities and nature etc. Yet Jesus is never described in the same way and context as Jehovah.
I would suggest lurkers to look it up. Do an online search and see the various ways “Lord” and “God” is used. In the clear cases where Jehovah is described see if there is a distinction between Jehovah and Jesus. Are they described as being the same? Ever? Are they ever described as being the same co-equal person?
No.
The Holy Spirit points the way to God.
True. Points to God, but isn’t desribed as being God.
Jesus said that He would ask God to send the Holy Spirit.
These things completely undermine the Trinity Doctrine, for they show not just different beings, but beings with the capacity to have different assignments, beings with the potential for different wills, beings with differing authority, beings and with different commisions. This comment alone shows 3 distinctly different persons. Yet we should believe that Jesus will ask himself to send himself? It’s simply absurd.
Therefore the Holy Spirit is neither the Father nor Jesus.
True!
But the Holy Spirit is God.
Not true! In the dozens of time the HS is cited it is not referred to as The True God. Never. IIRC, upthread cosmosdan cited many instances where the bible cites the HS. Lurkers, look it up for yourself. Find all the times that the HS is cited. See if a compelling case can be made from a thorough examination of the texts, including context, that the HS is represented as the One True God.
This whole continuum is untenable. The weakest links, however, are the assertions, “Paul refers to Jesus as God”, and “But the Holy Spirit is God.” There is simply no biblical basis to support those claims.
I can’t help but think that Paul in particular—who held such intellectual masturbation in derision----would scoff at this mindset. Is there a single instance where either Jesus, Paul et al paid homage to Aristotelian philosophy? Paul held it in contempt!
Yes, Jesus is Lord. Yet Paul never said he was The Sovereign Lord.
Look at the contexts (few as they may be) where Paul uses “God” in describing Jesus. In every instance the context indicates Jesus’s nature, his qualities. Those comparisons stand in harmony with the dozens and dozens of times where Paul indicates Jesus to be subordinate, subject to, and obedient to, his Father and God.
It is worth noting that the foundation of both Jewish Law and Christianity is The Mosaic Law. (the most famous of which is the 10 commandments) While the ceremonial laws are/were no longer applicable, the foundation was still to be followed. These Laws were said to be given to the Jews by God himself, through Moses. Yet NONE of the Jews believed in the Trinity. NONE of Christ’s direct Apostles and the earliest Church believed in the Trinty. NONE OF THEM.
Yet we know better?
It is the height of arrogance for us to say that they were blissfully and willfully ignorant of the Trinity, and somehow we know better than those who were footstep followers of both Jehovah God, and of his Son, Jesus Christ.
I am only here to point out that, at least for Catholicism, the Bible is Truth, but Truth may also be found in other places. So, saying that there is no Biblical support for the current Catholic idealogy of the Trinity does not disprove its validity. It could very well have originated from a foreign source, or even a pagan source, but the Church has decided it to be valid. Obviously the Church does not dictate reality, but it does dictate doctrine.
So, I guess what I’m saying is that the “no Biblical support” argument is important but not crucial.