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. 

 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.

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.

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.

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:

 By the power of Brand C, Brand B was born of a virgin and became man.  He suffered, died and was buried.  He ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of Brand A.

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.   

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. 

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. 

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.

In John 1:1, the original Greek is as such.  "...Kai logos en theos" with theos being a masculine noun.  Additionally, the use of the word theos in other parts of the Greek based portions of the bible reference the singular use of the definition while the NWT basis is for the potential for more than one, incorrectly I might add, since meaning was distorted according to their belief of separate entities.

By the way, is this thread to be about the CHRISTIAN view of the Trinity or how other dogmas regard the Trinity?  Jcgadfly, you never did chime in with what you understand the Trinity to be.

Your understanding isn't far off.  Actually I like the heart-to-liver analogy.

As to what confuses you, you aren't alone.  We could go on all day and night and then some about "if God already knew we'd fall/sin/kill him/fail to live up to expectations" yada yada yada and why did he still did what he did seems illogical to do.  I'm not going to lie; it baffles me if God did know we'd fall from the garden, why did he put us there?  If he knew that we wouldn't be able to meet his laws, why would he send his son to be killed even though he knew we'd kill him?

But it does remind me there is a reason to be served though, the sacrifice as you put it.  Perhaps it's more for our reason than his.  Why he did what he did would be more about humanity than tootin his own horn if you will.  That I would think says way more that what he did was nothing off his back but means everything for us.

Correct - which raises the question legitimate question of whether there is actual scriptural provenance for the concept of trinity, or whether it was a doctrine conceived well after christianity had begun.  Bear in mind the new testament canon -(which you cite for references to the father, son and holy spirit) was not established until the 4th century.

If god's being is "infinite and unlimited", why does it settle on 3?  Is god subject to some overarching triune rule, is 3 some optimal value which god naturally proceeds to, or does god arbitrarily choose 3?

Is that to say "neither father, son nor holy spirit is 'god', but father + son + holy spirit = god"?

You describe these three circles as "identical".  Yet according to the same scripture upon which you rely, each "circle" executes a particular role which could not be assumed by the other two "circles".  If the role of each is unique, they cannot be said to be identical.

This is what I see as the inherent problem with the defense of a belief such as trinitarianism -- one has to abandon "humanistic standards" in order to accept it.  I find such a defense duplicit for this reason:  Above, you seek to discredit jw's non-trinitarianism by pointing out the scriptural provenance for trinitarianism.  That is to say, you attempt to establish continuity (a "humanistic standard" of accuracy) between scripture and your belief, and hold jw's in error for lack of such continuity (failure to meet a "humanistic standard" of accuracy).  Yet proceeding with your explanation, you suddenly exempt yourself from these same "humanistic standards", since abiding by them would render your belief unintelligible.

I appreciate your response.  Yet I hope you realize that as long as this belief requires a "beyond human comprehension" escape clause, I cannot be obliged to respect the belief, much less subscribe to it myself. 

Interesting perspective on that.  Could be.  Can't say I ever thought of it like that.

First, Jesus as a man - I'm not sure I have the words to paint the right kind of picture.  The Trinity as we know it puts Jesus as God on Earth as a man.  Because he was born of woman, he is man and all that comes with being a man.  Means he would feel pain, feel hunger, feel just about every sensation that you or I would feel on a daily basis.  The difference however is since he is God, his "spiritual" part is far different than ours.  His body dies but the spiritual part does not.

As to the sacrifice, are you familiar with the atonement from the old testament?  It's all about symbolism correct?  That's what his death represented.  That is the reason behind the "fulfillment" of the law.  It set the OT stuff as default since the sacrifice to God has been set so high that no human can ever sacrifice enough to please God.  That make sense?  We can go farther than that if you like...

Could be the case, I suppose, I'm no expert in Hebrew.  I find it highly doubtful.

Much more than twice.  Just looking at the "I am" statements Jesus makes using the divine name revealed by God to Moses:

 Mark 14:62, "62 And Jesus said to him: I am. And you shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of the power of God, and coming with the clouds of heaven."

John 6:41 "I am the living bread which came down from heaven."

John 6:48 "I am the bread of life"

John 6:51 "I am the living bread which came down from heaven."

John 8:58 "Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say to you, before Abraham was made, I am."

John 18:5-6 "5 They answered him: Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith to them: I am he. And Judas also, who betrayed him, stood with them.

6 As soon therefore as he had said to them: I am he; they went backward, and fell to the ground. "

John 18:8 "8 Jesus answered, I have told you that I am he. If therefore you seek me, let these go their way."

I haven't read the surrounding texts but just examining the above quotes I only see Jesus referring to himself in vague theistic metaphors and implied meaning.  Where in the above scriptures does Jesus come right out and plainly say "I am God."

As far as existing before Abraham, well, every angel who was created by God could authentically make the same claim. Even Satan predates the biblical patriarchs.

Lastly, claiming to be God is not the same as proving to be God.  Apparently the Jews, both ancient and modern, were not convinced.  If even God's chosen people considered Jesus to be a fraud what does that say about J's credability ?

So you are extending this back to when Yahweh referred to himself as I AM when talking to Moses? For all we know, he could be simply trying to back up his Messianic claim or comparing himself to Mithra (common titles).

John 18:5-6? That's a bit of a stretch. If I asked someone who they were looking for and said "<my name> of Bloomington IN" and I said "I am he", do you really think that I just called myself God?

So we have to believe that the Trinity is exactly as you describe because you can't adequately describe it?

Yet you KNOW it's real?

Isn't that a bit of a non sequitur? I mean that's not in the context of the bible, not even close.

Yes, I am referencing God's introduction to Moses.  Of course Jesus is backing up His Messianic claim, it was one of His purposes for Incarnation.  Mithra clled himself "I am"?

But your admission to being so and so of Bloomington, IN never knocked cops to the ground.  (BTW, if your so and so of Bllonington, IN, I'm so and so of Indianapolis, IN.  We're neighbors.)

First, I was referencing when Jesys called himself "the light of the world", "the good shepherd", "the way, the truth and the life", etc. Those were also terms for Mithra. Otherwise, everyone who ansers "are you...? with "I am" is calling himself God.

Second, if just his mentioning "I am He" was enough to push people back and knock them down, no one should ever have gotten close enough to arrest him. Human nature would've said "Screw this, I'm not messing with him". As that didn't happen (the story says he was arrested), I say that the pushing people back and knocking them to the ground was added for effect and not because it was factual.

But can you consider what I SAY as rational?  If you think of theology as irrational, does that mean you think of me as irrational?

To talk theory is not irrational.  You might not subscribe what is being discussed but that does not make it any less valid as a possible line of thought.  That's why there is a thing called reason that should be common.

I understand exactly where you're coming from.  This is why I'm trying to explain it as clearly as I can and in the way that I am.

I believe God is real, and I'm trying to distinguish between a religious understanding of God and what the Bible says about him.  I use the 2nd reasoning because if I don't I get endless posts about who God is and the issues people have with certain religions views etc.  Just brings us way off topic. 

yup

huh???

The only thing I've placed beyond human comprehension is the spirit world, which logically would be.  The concept itself is in scripture and in my understanding is pretty clear. 

It's trying to understand how one being can posess more than one person.  Would you say that IS within your understanding?

That's a tough question to give a strait yes or no answer to.  Let me try to explain myself here.  this is not a cop out.

I have always told everyone that I am open to any contradictory information they want to bring to me.  I've told them too that I will always consider everything brought to my attention.  I always challenge my understanding because I know that if God is really NOT real, then there will be information out there that will show me this. 

So far, every bit of "conclusive" information against my belief and understanding of God's existance has thus only reaffirmed my belief in God.  

Because I have yet to see any information what so ever that gives me even a remote indication that God might not be real, I will say no to your question. 

However, if God is not real, then I will say yes to your question because there would have to be information out there that would prove it. This information would also have to explain logically how all these spiritual happenings really occurred.  I'm talking about the relationship I have built and His work in my life.  To a believer, he is active.  The believers also see dramatic changes in their lives that they don't promote when they find God.