PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
RULES
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
RULES
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
RULES
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
RULES
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
Online 
*dupe*
- Tarpan
1) the spirit resides within each of us like a soul where as the father and son are singular and do not reside in us
2) the spirit residing within acted like the sperm within so it was a product of the father while still being the father within the spirit sperm which created the son which is also the father which was in the spirit sperm
3) the son always existed but wasn't created until hte moment of the inpregnation of mary. but because god omnipresent and is outside of time he became the father at that point but then was the father at all points because he was outside of time ... this might indicate that there was a 'first pass' where the son was not omnipresent yet since he had to be born first to become omnipresent but in fact becasue the father and spirit sperm were already outside of time and the son is the feather and the spirit sperm the son was alreayd outside of time and was always there despite being created at the moment of his birth as the son of himself. If you question any of this just repeat the cycle over and over until you're too exhausted to argue.
In summary:
The father, the son, and the holy spirit sperm are outside of time yet the son was created at the point of inpregnation. the sperm is the father within the sperm and the son is the father created by the spirit sperm but is actually the father born as the son of the father so he is the son of the father but also the father and spirit sperm which resides in all of us.
- Tarpan
Interesting to see you post this. Haven't seen you post something new like this in a while...
First I'm going to assume we are talking about only the Christian definition of "holy spirit" and not the [non-Christian] Mormon definition or Jehovah Witness version either.
Off that assumption, the "holy spirit" is not a separate entity by definition of the Trinity. Based on your opening statement though, it seems like you might not understand what the Trinity is exactly so before it goes any further really, what do you understand the Trinity to be?
I did want to add I don't understand questions like this since they typically end up back to the whole "but your belief is stupid so na-na na-na na-na na" meaning if you are asking because you really want to know and not insult, the discussion can be reasonable.
My eyes have seen all this, my ears have heard and understood it. What you know, I also know; I am not inferior to you. But I desire to speak to the Almighty and to argue my case with God. You, however, smear me with lies...(Job 13)
Despite a long (and relatively amicable) discussion about christianity, we didn't arrive at any standard definition. You are free to give your christian definition; if any mormons or jw's want to throw in their 2 shekels, they are more than welcome.
This is the profession of faith which we recited in catholic mass. Despite a catholic upbringing as well as several years of theological study in college, I must admit I never found a well-defined explanation of the trinity. I went to great trouble to come up with my own explanations, with ludicrous (if thoughtful) results, such as comparing the triune god to Plato's Republic and theory of mind. Essentially, I professed faith in the trinity, and used my imagination to fill in the cracks. So beyond its semantic meaning -- "3 in one" -- I don't understand it.
I'm sure you're not shocked to know that I find beliefs such as the trinity to be irrational, but I'm not seeking to bait anyone here. I placed this in KEWK specifically to spare posters any insults. Only if I see fallacies being used in explanation, I will politely point them out.
The Blasphemy Challenge doesn't work because christianity doesn't work.
I know. Interesting how that has become an issue lately.
So then perhaps it should start there. It also should illustrate why Mormon and JW are NOT Christian since that is not a shared belief (and the primary reason for their exclusion to the title).
The Trinity is nothing more than the term to describe how the bible answers the question "Who is God?" That's where you get the 3 in one bit: the supernatural being that created all things, the spirit entity that communicates to his creation, and the man who walked the Earth known as Jesus. Is that any different from what you already have heard? If not, what is not understandable? If so, did it make reasonable sense?
My eyes have seen all this, my ears have heard and understood it. What you know, I also know; I am not inferior to you. But I desire to speak to the Almighty and to argue my case with God. You, however, smear me with lies...(Job 13)
It's not much different than what I've already heard, but no, I don't find it understandable. The death & resurrection is one unintelligible part of it, but there are threads dealing with that already. Would you care to answer the specific questions in the OP? Let me know if what I'm asking isn't clear.
The Blasphemy Challenge doesn't work because christianity doesn't work.
Well part of the original post that can lead us to going in circles is understanding the Trinity. Not understanding the concept that God is a spirit, was a man on Earth, and is the essence of how he establishes a relationship with his creation is what answers question 1.
Figure of speech. Typically the creator of something is referred to as the "father" of that creation. Oppenheimer is typically called the father of the atom bomb for example.
You're asking for speculation which isn't exactly reasonable. This in my mind goes back to what the Trinity is, which is to say all three are one, so "prior function" doesn't exactly make a lot of sense.
That's another discussion which, by watch, was resolved ages ago. The Blasphemy Challenge is not valid because it is out of context to the full passage in the bible. But then that's not the point of this thread right?
My eyes have seen all this, my ears have heard and understood it. What you know, I also know; I am not inferior to you. But I desire to speak to the Almighty and to argue my case with God. You, however, smear me with lies...(Job 13)
I can try to understand that concept, but I'm not quite clear how it answers what exactly the holy spirit does, which cannot be accomplished by the father and son.
But jesus is called "the son", which I took to correspond to "the father". Yet according to the story, it was the holy spirit who actually did the "fathering".
When jesus asked his "father" in the garden that the "cup be taken away", which part of the trinity was he petitioning?
I can see why you find this unreasonable, but hopefully you can see why I'm asking. Am I at least correct in understanding that jesus and the h.s. existed prior to the creation of man? After man sinned, jesus took on the role of god coming down as a man to die, resurrect, etc. The h.s. took on the role of impregnating a virgin with jesus, empowering the disciples, etc. If not for man's fall from grace, would there be any roles for jesus and the h.s. to fill?
No, it's not. But as I'm sure you've noticed, every few weeks someone new shows up with their own earth-shattering explanation of why the BC doesn't work. I simply think one should first give a defensible explanation of what the holy spirit is, before pontificating about how denying it is not unforgivable.
The Blasphemy Challenge doesn't work because christianity doesn't work.
I think the reason I'm having a hard time understanding the purpose of the question is probably because the way you structure the question itself. If the concept of the Trinity is all three are one, yet you are asking them to be separate, there is a fundamental problem there. Asking what the holy spirit can't do over God or the Son is asking what can't the Father or Son themselves do.
I've been trying to think of some kind of analogy, the closest I've come would be something like if you had Smuckers brand strawberry jelly, and then you see the store brand which is Smuckers repackaged, you are asking what would one strawberry jam do over the other (outside the price difference) that the former can't do even though they are both the same jelly and when used, both provide the same taste.
I really want to skip this question, not because of not having an answer, but only because I'm not sure I can give you an answer that would make much sense outside theology.
I can understand why you are asking. The reason I started my responses with "do you understand the Trinity" is because asking them to be separate is not a Christian concept or mode of thinking. God/Jesus/HS existed before man. God/Jesus/HS visited Mary and set in motion for God/Jesus/HS to be born as a man. God/Jesus/HS empowered those who believed. God/Jesus/HS died to open the gates of heaven. See where I'm going with this?
I'm over generalizing here, but I'm doing it for a reason so show the purpose of the definition of the Trinity. I can get into the details of God does this, the HS does that, and Jesus did this that could show separation, but the kicker is, they aren't separate.
Denying the holy spirit, which is to deny Jesus, which is to deny God, but getting more specific in that "I deny the holy spirit" is more so to say denying the essence of God in man, what good works man does as not from God but from evil, i.e. Satan. Thing is, that's not what you guys are doing. You are making the implication they don't exist, which is no unforgivable sin. From my point of view, you simply don't know them.
Saying they don't exist is immaterial because it's not what describes the "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit" in context of the bible. If you were an ER trauma nurse and I told you that helping people, saving lives, is an act against humanity because people are evil and they should die whenever possible is not a rational thought to begin with. Even more so if I start to say you are contributing to that evil that is humanity by saving lives so your actions as a nurse are evil. You could/would tell me that by desiring the death of the species, I'm "blaspheming" against the species that I belong to, especially since it is very obviously irrational to not use the knowledge we have gained through the evolution of our minds to better ourselves. I'm accusing you of committing an evil act by using medicine. I did not say "I deny health care" because I choose not to believe in it but rather deny health care because those who use health care are evil, even though many of us know that health care is far from. I don't know if that made any sense at all...
My eyes have seen all this, my ears have heard and understood it. What you know, I also know; I am not inferior to you. But I desire to speak to the Almighty and to argue my case with God. You, however, smear me with lies...(Job 13)
By what criteria do you distinguish the "3" of "3 in 1"? If the F & S can do everything the HS can do, what purpose does the HS serve? What purpose, for that matter, does the S serve?
I know this is nitpicking, As you have stated elsewhere, belief in the trinity is essential to being christian (on which account you exclude jw's & mormons); why is it necessary to have 3/1 instead of simply 1/1?
If I understand you, you are likening the trinity to 3 jars of the same strawberry jam, with different brand names on each. First of all: If it's all the same jelly and it all tastes the same, why does a christian have to acknolwedge 3 different brands?
Now, teetering on the brink of absurdity, consider how this analogy applies to the christian scenario:
With all due respect, I don't feel the analogy carries.
Understandable, and I thank you for that admission. But please realize that in essence, this is circular reasoning: that you first have to believe in it in order for it to make sense.
I'm not insisting on there being "separate" entities; but separate or not, they have to be distinct in some manner in order for the "tri" in trinity to at all be meaningful.
The Blasphemy Challenge doesn't work because christianity doesn't work.
About the only way I can really answer any of this is theological like so you really want that kind of answer?
I think you might have missed the point. We know they are all the same brand of jam. They are labeled three different brands for the sake of simplisity and for our own understanding but they are all the same brand of jam. Brand A, B, and C are all brand X for example, but we call them A, B, and C to distinguish it for easier understanding.
If you recognize that nature is the general label for what we see and discover that is outside humanity, well we know that a volcano eurupting, a dog mating, or how the oceans can support something like a blue whale, that's nature but they are all three different things under the same heading...sorta.
Yea I wasn't trying to force anything, I'm trying to keep it simple.
My eyes have seen all this, my ears have heard and understood it. What you know, I also know; I am not inferior to you. But I desire to speak to the Almighty and to argue my case with God. You, however, smear me with lies...(Job 13)
If "theological like" means it is only intelligible to someone who already believes, then no.
If you mean to say (I'm not assuming that you are) that one has to believe in the trinity in order to understand it, then I feel there's nothing further to discuss, and we can peacefully conclude.
I think you are quibbling on my word usage. Very well, if it's the same brand of jam, why is it crucial for the christian to acknowledge 3 distinct jars of the same-branded jam -- as opposed to 1 jar, or 17 jars, or no jar at all?
Again, with all due respect, I fear the analogy is quickly reducing the discussion into absurdity.
I'm not trying to entrap you. You don't have to defend the analogy for its own sake.
The Blasphemy Challenge doesn't work because christianity doesn't work.
Na I'm not asking you to believe. I don't think you have to, not even close.
I'm only working the analogy. Yes, it's stupid I know, but I'm trying something I'm sure you'd relate to.
Knowing there are three separate jars makes it so you can identify the three business models if you will on what makes up the X brand of jam. Of course, it's still the same jam no matter which jam you purchase, no matter which you use to eat with peanut butter, the same jam if you choose to have one for a storm kit (the cheap label), the same jam if you use it for your own deserts (called brand b), and the same jam that you'd use to make sandwiches for your kids (brand c, the one they like).
God is God no matter what you might call the entity, the man, or the essence. The fact that he's identified by three different names (if you wanna call them names) is incidental to identify the three forms that humans might identify God: the entity that exists, the man as he came about, and the essence that speaks to us.
Now do you wanna keep going down that road of theology?
As to why we must identify three, my answer behind that would be because we are incapable of saying all three was the same thing. There is an entity, a man, and a "presence" which feels like three different objects but yet there are the same. Moving to the supernatural as it were, nature no longer applies, nor can it.
I know...
Understood...
My eyes have seen all this, my ears have heard and understood it. What you know, I also know; I am not inferior to you. But I desire to speak to the Almighty and to argue my case with God. You, however, smear me with lies...(Job 13)
Alright, I'm going to try to clarify a few things first. Also, anything I say here I will try to use in support of what was already said in this blog.
First things first, let's get it clear that "The Trinity" is a man made word. It was established to help us better understand our God. You will not find the word "Trinity" in the Bible. However, you will find The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit.
In Genesis, and through the Old Testament if you look into the Hebrew and Aramaic, you will notice that God is referenced plurally, not singularly. Therefore, any presupposition that the idea was not known or did not exist until Jesus is false.
Also, John 1:3 says right away; "All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being." Him referring to Jesus. Redundant? yes!, but the point of redundancy is to emphasize the fact that nothing existed without Jesus, therefore Jesus was there before anything existed. (side note: Jesus is not a created being as the Jehovah's Witnesses might try to say)
The Jehovah's Witnesses also try to say that the Holy Spirit is just God's power or force and is not a being... but if we look up the dictionary definition of "Spirit", we will find right off that spirit is; "the principal of conscious life". If you continue down the list of definitions, they consistently imply a being or life form of sorts. If you read through more than half, you start getting into ideas of non-living references. This is where the Witnesses take advantage. However, if you read the Bible, you will notice that whenever the Bible references to "just a power" it doesn't say the spirit, it says power! or another variation of the word. Where there is the word Spirit used to reference to something other than a being, the original language wherever it might be "e.g. Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic" will distinguish whether it's talking about a being or not. The Holy Spirit is always referenced to in the original language as a being.
OK, now onto the Trinity and what it is.
I'm going to use James R. White's explanation because I see this as the clearest understanding of what we're trying to say when we reference to God as a trinity. this was originally used to explain the real Trinity idea to the Jehovah's Witnesses, so I will make it appropriate for this conversation.
I believe in the Trinity because the Bible teaches the doctrine. As I said before, the word's not there, but the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are.
First, there is only One true God, YHWH, creator of all things. Next, there are 3 divine persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. The Bible teaches the "full equality" of these divine persons. This would include the deity of Jesus Christ and the personality of the Holy Spirit. This is where I think the conversations fall apart.
This is where I think it needs to be clarified. I am not asserting that there are three persons that are one person nor that there are three beings that are one being. We are differentiating between the terms being and person.
The Bible teaches that all things have being, but only God, humans and angels are personal. I as a human being am one person. My being make me human, my personality differentiates me from all other human beings. Since my being is finite and limited, only one person can properly subsist in it, namely, me. But since God's being is infinite and unlimited, it can be, and is, shared by three persons, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Therefore we see, there are 3 separate persons, not all "God", but they all share his being and are equal thereof.
To add to it, the 3 are equal, though their own person. So if you take for example, three identical circles and put one on top of another so that they are stacked, you can look at them and know they are the same in every way, it doesn't matter where you put them or how you put them, they're identical. Now picture a hierarchy. The top circle is the head, the middle circle, though identical and just as powerful as the head is subject to the head, yet has just as much power and authority. And the third and bottom circle, again equal to the first two in every way is subject to the head and the secondary circle yet again has just as much power and authority. If you put a larger circle around those three smaller circles, this will unite that hierarchy. The top circle represents God the Father, the middle circle, Jesus Christ, and the bottom circle, the Holy Spirit. The big circle around those little ones is God's being.
I'm sure at this point logic is smacking you in the face and saying NO NO!!! NO!!! can't happen. You can't have someone subject to another and yet have the same authority as the one they are subject to. This is where I say, "you cannot compare God to a humanistic standard"
In this instance all are in agreement with each other. None are going to usurp another's authority, therefore there is no need to give less authority or power to any part.
Also, logically, everything could not have been created through Jesus Christ unless he had just as much power and authority as God as was equal and every way to Him. There's just no way a lesser being could handle that.
As far as the Holy Spirit is concerned, this Holy Spirit could not fill more than one person or many from around the world or be the "helper" as described in the Bible and not be an equal to God as well. In order for Jesus to do what he does and for the Holy Spirit to do what he does, they would have to share being with God.
Understand this is the best way I know how to explain a topic that is beyond human comprehension. I'm sure my explanation is not without flaw and I'm sure you'll be more than happy to point out the flaws in my explanation. I hope that you were able to at least follow what I was trying to say. Understand the flaws in my explanation if any would be my error and not any indication that this cannot be possible. In other words, let me explain myself before jumping to conclusions if there is a misunderstanding.
1. Trinitarianism was not a concept that was known in Biblical times. Polytheism, however, was all over the place. What makes "Let us make man in our image and after our likeness" god referring to himself in the plural and not one humanoid god speaking to other humanoid gods?
2. John was referring to the "Word". If he really meant "Jesus", why hide it?
3. I think you're confusing "personality" and "person-hood". Personality is learned/acquired.
4. I think it's a good thing that people didn't listen when religious folk tried to put things "beyond human comprehension". If that were taken seriously, you still wouldn't be allowed to read the Bible (or anything else) and doctors would still be bloodletting and praying instead of destroying disease causing organisms.
True, trinitarianism is not expressly seen in the OT. That the concept finds expression in some of the polytheistic religions is undoubtedly true, since all religions contain some aspects of the truth.
Not only do we see in the Creation account in Genesis God referring to himself in the plural (which I believe is not only an indication of trinitarianism, but God expressing the dual nature of Man), but we also see the "spirit of God" hovering over the waters. Why God's spirit and not God Himself if the Spirit is not a separate entity? The Spirit hovering above the water is also a type of Baptism.
It is clear from the wording of the prologue to John's Gospel that he is deliberately mimicking Genesis, the implication being that Jesus Christ was "the Word" of Creation which God poke when He said, "Let there be..."
In John 1:14, "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us", we have "beheld His glory", "John bore witness to Him". John is certainly not "hiding" the identity of the Word. He is, on the contrary, quite explicit in revealing the divine nature of Jesus. In fact, the prologue to John is so devastatiing to the JW denial of the divinity of Jesus, that in the New World translation of the Bible, they changed the wording to say that the Word was "with God, and the Word was a God."
Jesus Himself stresses His divinity repeatedly.
"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II
1. Do we really know for sure that it was "spirit of God" and not "spirit of a god"? I'm not trying to be facetious here - I just don't know if there's a basis for it in the text or if it was just a leap by the authors. For all I know, they could be talking about the Canaanite deity El.
2. That must've been why he always referred to himself as the "son of man" ( A common messianic title) and only hinted at being the son of God maybe twice.
In John 1:1, the original Greek is as such. "...Kai logos