#Login Register
The Vigilant Citizen Forums
Trinitarians -


09-15-2015, 03:39 PM #1
khadeejah
*****
Chaplain
Status: Offline Posts:2,465 Likes Received:6373
If the three persons of the Trinitarian Godhead are co-equal,  co-eternal and consubstantial, and "each is God, whole and entire"  as you believe, then why when you talk about them does the Father always have to be mentioned first and Holy Spirit last?    Do Trinitarians consider it a sin or blasphemous if someone said,  " In the name of the Holy Spirit, the Father and the Son?"

Also  when you say "in the name of..."  what exactly is the name you are referring to?
The following 4 users Like khadeejah's post:
  • Scimitar, Kung Fu, peacebeuponall, Tarikko

09-15-2015, 05:26 PM #2
meltbanana
*****
Chaplain
Status: Offline Posts:1,310 Likes Received:944
I'm not a 'Trinitarian' but I will try to present my pov if you don't mind. God the father is #1. He is the head honcho when it comes to power and all. Jesus the son of God the father is literally his son meaning his offspring. and I'd describe him as being totally awesome and the man in past, present and future charge of several matters. it will be an honor to be able to bow to him. and then there is 'the Comforter', the Spirit of truth who is also God and a He; in a non-physical form, being 'a' spirit. further hows and whys are of no significant matter to me. similiar to the wording of the teachings of the Qur'an, 'my exclusive #1 God' is God the father but contrary to what the Qur'an says Jesus is the son of God who has risen on the third day and so on. I have no problem with God somehow begetting 'a' son. there's not one rational explanation for why that couldn't or even shouldn't be the case by the way. God can simply behause he can.
The following 1 user Likes meltbanana's post:
  • MissMiami

09-15-2015, 05:39 PM #3
meltbanana
*****
Chaplain
Status: Offline Posts:1,310 Likes Received:944
plus even for extrabiblical 'fundamental logical reasons' Jesus must be his son and must have been resurrected (while of course he is not his father and he has not resurrected himself). in very short, God must be 'a' father and Jesus must be his son because of the factors love and in light of the sacrifice in relation (and the subsequent resurrection is explicitly dependent and more so additionally for verifying who's boss (to 'make it as easy as possible' for anyone)).
The following 1 user Likes meltbanana's post:
  • MissMiami

09-15-2015, 06:03 PM #4
seekinheart
****
Justiciar
Status: Offline Posts:583 Likes Received:522
(09-15-2015, 03:39 PM)khadeejah Wrote:  If the three persons of the Trinitarian Godhead are co-equal,  co-eternal and consubstantial, and "each is God, whole and entire"  as you believe, then why when you talk about them does the Father always have to be mentioned first and Holy Spirit last?    Do Trinitarians consider it a sin or blasphemous if someone said,  " In the name of the Holy Spirit, the Father and the Son?"

Also  when you say "in the name of..."  what exactly is the name you are referring to?

I myself find the trinity difficult to understand, but well they are equal in that they are all God, their will is all the same in union but they are distinct from each other in personhood, I do think the father's will is first in the hierarchy but also that christs will is synonymous with the fathers as is the holy spirit's so they are all equal, but ultimately God the father is Gods will, and christ is to carry it out while he was on earth and the holy spirit is to be here as christ cannot be physically manifest on earth these are mysteries that we cant really fully understand. But remember their is a three fold witness in the bible, and that is probably why God exists as three separate entities, the three fold witness is used to give the best account of what happened. 

I think we are subordinate to christ and christ is subordinate to God the father while still being God, as we cannot be reconciled to the father on our own. So that is how the trinity works.
The following 2 users Like seekinheart's post:
  • The Creeper, meltbanana

09-15-2015, 06:15 PM #5
celle76
****
Justiciar
Status: Offline Posts:610 Likes Received:1880
(09-15-2015, 05:26 PM)meltbanana Wrote:  I'm not a 'Trinitarian' but I will try to present my pov if you don't mind. God the father is #1. He is the head honcho when it comes to power and all. Jesus the son of God the father is literally his son meaning his offspring. and I'd describe him as being totally awesome and the man in past, present and future charge of several matters. it will be an honor to be able to bow to him. and then there is 'the Comforter', the Spirit of truth who is also God and a He; in a non-physical form, being 'a' spirit. further hows and whys are of no significant matter to me. similiar to the wording of the teachings of the Qur'an, 'my exclusive #1 God' is God the father but contrary to what the Qur'an says Jesus is the son of God who has risen on the third day and so on. I have no problem with God somehow begetting 'a' son. there's not one rational explanation for why that couldn't or even shouldn't be the case by the way. God can simply behause he can.

I get your point meltbanana. This is the key difference between our beliefs, the concept of what God can and can not do. I have posted this about a billions times here. You (Christians) see it befitting for God to beget and we as muslims oppose the thought of it. For us begetting is not a quality of God, it is something applied to humans and animals. But that is what your faith teaches you. I say let us all keep expanding our knowledge and Insh'Allah (God willing) we will find what quenches the soul. The truth. Amin.
The following 9 users Like celle76's post:
  • Glauben, Smooch, Kung Fu, The Creeper, Tarikko, peacebeuponall, Vytas, Scimitar, khadeejah

09-15-2015, 06:22 PM #6
K-Roox
**
Knight
Status: Offline Posts:51 Likes Received:65
Though each person of the Trinity are equal in their nature and being, they are not equal in their relation to each other in their roles. As a father has authority over a son, or a husband has authority over his wife, or a parent over a child, each of these remain equally human. Equally dignified. The Son has always been subordinate to the Father, and the Spirit subordinate to both of them. Submission is thus a noble thing shown within the Trinity, which helps us creatures understand it better in our own spheres (And thus crumbles many of the arguments for egalitarianism and feminist rhetoric).

The order of the names may denote that sense of authority. We see that in ancient writings and elsewhere in the Bible. We say ''The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit'' in that manner (As like in baptism) because that's the command. It would not be sinful to talk of God in a different order, though it would be in error if you were meaning to call them all equal in roles or alter those roles in any way.

And as for being ''in the name,'' that denotes the authority and character of that person. That is why Christians commonly pray in the name of Christ. It's by His merit we can pray. Also, Jesus commands that His people pray in His name, but this also means praying in His will, character, etc (Thus also crumbles a lot of rhetoric from the prosperity gospel camps...).

''Haste thee on from grace to glory,
Armed by faith, and winged by prayer.
Heaven’s eternal days before thee,
God’s own hand shall guide us there.
Soon shall close thy earthly mission,
Soon shall pass thy pilgrim days,
Hope shall change to glad fruition,
Faith to sight, and prayer to praise.''
The following 2 users Like K-Roox's post:
  • Thy Unveiling, Vytas

09-15-2015, 06:25 PM #7
khadeejah
*****
Chaplain
Status: Offline Posts:2,465 Likes Received:6373
Thanks for replying you guys and in a calm mature way. 

MB -  my mom (who is Christian) thinks that Allaah is "God the Father" in much the same way you said.  From my POV,   of the three persons (Father, Son and Holy Spirit)  only One is worthy of being called God and that is the one you refer to as "the Father."  "The Son" is Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him)  and "the Holy Ghost" is the greatest of the angels, the angel of revelation -  Gabriel.   But God knows best.

SH - I think the three fold witness that you mentioned was later proven to be an interpolation, but I may be wrong. 

I see what you both mean by having them in that order and I appreciate that you responded with such, though I don't see how something could be subordinate yet co-equal.

Thanks K-Roox for the additional info. But if the name is Jesus then why is it "in the name of the father and the son" since the name of the father is not Jesus too?
This post was last modified: 09-15-2015, 08:59 PM by khadeejah.
The following 5 users Like khadeejah's post:
  • Thy Unveiling, The Creeper, peacebeuponall, Tarikko, Scimitar

09-15-2015, 06:27 PM #8
K-Roox
**
Knight
Status: Offline Posts:51 Likes Received:65
Now I should also mention, orthodox Christianity holds to the Trinity: one God in three persons.

To claim Jesus was created, or is less than God the Father, is heresy. It was recognized and scripturally proved such back when Arius promoted his teachings. Today groups like Jehovah Witnesses or Mormons also teach it, however it is a grievous error.

That Jesus is called the 'begotten' is in the sense of His unique standing as the Son of God. The 'begotten' son in Greek families was the primary heir, the oldest, etc. That verse in Colossians which calls Him begotten then says that all things were created through Him. Meaning He was before all things. He always existed. He is the I AM, just as His Father, and just as He claims throughout the Gospels.

''Haste thee on from grace to glory,
Armed by faith, and winged by prayer.
Heaven’s eternal days before thee,
God’s own hand shall guide us there.
Soon shall close thy earthly mission,
Soon shall pass thy pilgrim days,
Hope shall change to glad fruition,
Faith to sight, and prayer to praise.''
The following 2 users Like K-Roox's post:
  • MissMiami, Vytas

09-15-2015, 07:28 PM #9
meltbanana
*****
Chaplain
Status: Offline Posts:1,310 Likes Received:944
(09-15-2015, 06:15 PM)celle76 Wrote:  
(09-15-2015, 05:26 PM)meltbanana Wrote:  I'm not a 'Trinitarian' but I will try to present my pov if you don't mind. God the father is #1. He is the head honcho when it comes to power and all. Jesus the son of God the father is literally his son meaning his offspring. and I'd describe him as being totally awesome and the man in past, present and future charge of several matters. it will be an honor to be able to bow to him. and then there is 'the Comforter', the Spirit of truth who is also God and a He; in a non-physical form, being 'a' spirit. further hows and whys are of no significant matter to me. similiar to the wording of the teachings of the Qur'an, 'my exclusive #1 God' is God the father but contrary to what the Qur'an says Jesus is the son of God who has risen on the third day and so on. I have no problem with God somehow begetting 'a' son. there's not one rational explanation for why that couldn't or even shouldn't be the case by the way. God can simply behause he can.

I get your point meltbanana. This is the key difference between our beliefs, the concept of what God can and can not do. I have posted this about a billions times here. You (Christians) see it befitting for God to beget and we as muslims  oppose the thought of it. For us begetting is not a quality of God, it is something applied to humans and animals. But that is what your faith teaches you. I say let us all keep expanding our knowledge and Insh'Allah (God willing) we will find what quenches the soul. The truth. Amin.

believe it or not, but back then I already knew that 'if Jesus existed and if he was resurrected' (at that time I did not know Jesus Christ yet but I already knew that God exists) then he must be God's son (and not a creation). simply based on necessary factors; 'terms and conditions' which had to have been applied or otherwise I would not have bought any of it. see my reason; my motive; my driving force had been my hope and personal need for 'God to actually exist' while I had not yet read the Bible. I did not even want to. eventually I learned (meaning I gained actual knowledge by actual insight; by actual definitions) and 'had no other chance' but to 'verify the rest' (Bible, Jesus, and so on) too. I did not really choose to be what others define as 'being a christian'. and while I admittedly directly skipped those purple elephant religions and alike I did take a deeper look at the Qur'an (and some hadiths) even though it had pretty much already disqualified itself by being based on the sole claims of a (human) man (namely Muhammad who explained how/that he was visited by an angel (according to Muhammad 'Jibril' who the Bible calls Gabriel)) who told him stuff. and then I of course stumbled over a verse that explicitly denied Jesus being the son of God. but with the former in mind I already knew that 'if all of this was true' then fundamentally Jesus 'had to be' the son of God and Jesus 'must have been' resurrected by his father. because of 'the logic of the big picture' alone.

well whatever. this and the rest were 'unplanned attachment' so to say. bottom line - Jesus Christ being the son of God as well as his resurrection (and why/that God sacrificed and resurrected him) is the most important key factor of them all. like it or not. and in regards to this I repeatedly advice anyone to actually know; to be absolutely sure. everything else would be an opinion or even faith based on insecurity. which is nothing but ridiculous. so back to your comment this will hopefully explain why I cannot be 'tolerant' of Islam. because if I would I would also obviously not care for the sake of my muslim brothers and sisters. but believe it or not I do - sometimes it still surprises myself. the 'bad' part is that muslims, like anyone else, must find out and know for themselves.

thank you for your previous post and also for taking the time to read this brother celle. a good task for your to-do-list and 'expanding your knowledge' would now be the reasonable explanation (which comes with insight) for why 'begetting is not a quality of God' and why 'it is something applied to humans and animals' I guess. because face it - none of it makes any sense. God can because he can. the end.
The following 1 user Likes meltbanana's post:
  • Vytas

09-15-2015, 09:23 PM #10
khadeejah
*****
Chaplain
Status: Offline Posts:2,465 Likes Received:6373
(09-15-2015, 07:28 PM)meltbanana Wrote:  I already knew that 'if Jesus existed and if he was resurrected' (at that time I did not know Jesus Christ yet but I already knew that God exists) then he must be God's son (and not a creation). simply based on necessary factors; 'terms and conditions' which had to have been applied or otherwise I would not have bought any of it.

MB -  I know you weren't addressing me but your post raises a lot of questions for me.  Please don't get offended and please don't tell me it's something I have to figure out for myself... but why must Jesus be God's son (and not a creation) [ according to you] if he:
  • a. existed, and
  • b. was resurrected?
Also -  would you care to expand on those necessary factors (terms and conditions) that had to have been applied?

Thank you.
This post was last modified: 09-15-2015, 09:54 PM by khadeejah. Edit Reason: clarifying that the claim is not my own.
The following 3 users Like khadeejah's post:
  • Thy Unveiling, The Creeper, Tarikko