The Baha'i Source some call God(s) and why I believe in God.

[shunyadragon]

I don't believe for a second that he actually spent that much time studying the Trinity. Maybe read a couple books that were over his head, and a few pamphlets from the local Baha'i meeting place, but he shows absolutely no sign of even beginning to understand the doctrine of the Trinity outside of quickly googled sound bites.

It is a fact that I was raised in the Roman Church, attended St Francis College,and studied with the priests for a year to consider the possibility of becoming a priest.

You have no basis for saying that I have not studied what the Trinity, except for the fact that I disagree with your view. Do you say the same for ALL the other Christians, Christian theologians, Jews, and Jewish theologians who do not believe the Trinity is a valid Doctrine.

[One Bad Pig]

It is a fact that I was raised in the Roman Church, attended St Francis College,and studied with the priests for a year to consider the possibility of becoming a priest.

You have no basis for saying that I have not studied what the Trinity, except for the fact that I disagree with your view. Do you say the same for ALL the other Christians, Christian theologians, Jews, and Jewish theologians who do not believe the Trinity is a valid Doctrine.

His basis for making the assertion is your manifest failure to understand it. The problem is not your disagreement with the Trinity - it is your inability to present it properly.

[tabibito]

The trinity doesn't seem so hard to understand:
the Logos is God, but is neither the Holy Spirit nor the Father. - My soul is me, but is neither my body nor my spirit.
the Father is God, but is neither the Logos nor the Holy Spirit. - My spirit is me ~
The Holy Spirit is God, but is neither the Logos nor the Father. - My body is me ~
The Father, the Logos, and the Holy Spirit in combination are God. - My body, soul, and spirit in combination are me.

The Trinity does not refer to you.

A human is as much a trinity as is God. Humans are after all in the image and likeness of him. But your inability to logically address the analogy (whether or not it results from a failure to understand) is lamentable.

[shunyadragon]

His basis for making the assertion is your manifest failure to understand it. The problem is not your disagreement with the Trinity - it is your inability to present it properly.

I presented the specific referenced definition of the Trinity.

[One Bad Pig]

OK, feel sad. It is a fact that establishment of the doctrine of the Trinity occurred at the Council of Nicaea.

Repeating your assertion does not make it any more true. The first extant use of the word is by Theophilus in the mid-2nd century; the earliest written use of the concept is Mat. 28:19. The deity of the Holy Spirit was last denied by the Messalians post-Nicaea; our first extant defense of the deity of the Holy Spirit is by Athanasius the Great c. AD 350 ([b]after[/i] Nicaea), and the Nicene Creed was fleshed out to explicitly include the Holy Spirit as equal to the Father and the Son at Constantinople in AD 381.

[shunyadragon]

A human is as much a trinity as is God. Humans are after all in the image and likeness of him. But your inability to logically address the analogy (whether or not it results from a failure to understand) is lamentable.

No, the analogy does not support the Orthodox Christian Trinity than it does my view of the relationship between humanity and God I described. If by some chance the fact that humans are actually Gods and there are more than one "person" involved in this analogy than it is not in any way an adequate analogy.

[robrecht]

No, they are manifestations of God.

It reflects the spiritual attributes of God. The ultimate nature of God is unknown.

The Revelation through the Messiah reveals and reflects the attributes of God.

Yes, in an evolving cyclic progressive process that manifests the spiritual attributes of God. Revelation is part of the natural process of Creation. Revelation also occurs through the mind of humans.

You seem to be saying that the spiritual attributes of God are not his ultimate nature. Are these merely human apprehensions of the attributes of God. While you call this a metaphysical Trinity is not in fact an expression of the nature of God but beliefs about how God has acted in history. This particular idea of a metaphysical trinity, is it your own formulation or that of someone else? Do you have a source for this idea?

I consider the Trinity and attempt of the church fathers to explain the relationship between God, humanity and Creation, which cannot be explained by a doctrine of human construction.

One side note: One looking over posts and threads, and my notes your use of 'theological reflection as used in your sources is ok, but this use may be universal in some way or another in all religions. Nonetheless I would not use it this way to describe this process. I consider 'theological reflection' a human effort to understand the Divine, and does not have any certainty in establishing the truth concerning the nature of God, nor Doctrine.

How do you consider 'theological reflection' to result in the truth of a Doctrine in this case, than as it is used in any other religion or determination of doctrine including those who consider the Trinity as false.

As I've said before, I consider the terms 'theological reflection' to be no special case requiring any special definition other than the normal meaning of these two words, 'though of course I acknowledge that some try to limit the scope of theological reflection, such as yourself and some conservative theologians. No expression of doctrine, dogma, theology, catechism, or scripture is capable of explaining or defining the mystery of God, but they point toward it. In this I follow Christian apophatic and dialectic theologians of the ancient and medieval church, eg, St Thomas and the doctrine of divine simplicity, and contemporary schools of hermeneutical theology. Church doctrine expressed in conciliar or papal statements are bound by linguistic, historical and sociological limitations in the same way that scriptures need to be understood through historico-critical methods (as well as through other methods). Scriptures and doctrines reflect the glory of God, are inspired, but are not infallible or inerrant in a propositional way. I believe Jesus to be the human face of God and an excellent theologian of his time and for all time, but we still need theologians today, even if it is only the 'seat-of-the-pants' type of theology that we all do in making choices in our daily life for proximate and ultimate goodness. Based on what little I know of Bahá'u'lláh, he too seems like a pretty good theologian. I also believe in a metaphysical trinity (different from yours) that touches upon the relational, interpersonal nature of a God of love by means of human intuition and reason as well as by reflection upon scripture and church doctrine, specifically in my case the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, especially as it was ultimately defined in a minimalist relational and monotheistic way in the West (persons differing only insofar as they are in relation). Forgive me if I may have left out something specific that you were looking for. Notre Dame just won by a 'hail Mary' touchdown pass by the 'third string' red-shirt Freshman QB with 12-seconds to go so I was a little distracted.

[tabibito]

No, the analogy does not support the Orthodox Christian Trinity than it does my view of the relationship between humanity and God I described. If by some chance the fact that humans are actually Gods and there are more than one "person" involved in this analogy than it is not in any way an adequate analogy.

Without that you provide evidence in support of your claim, it is worth as much as any other bare assertion.

[shunyadragon]

Without that you provide evidence in support of your claim, it is worth as much as any other bare assertion.

There is no such objective evidence for either claim.

[shunyadragon]

You seem to be saying that the spiritual attributes of God are not his ultimate nature. Are these merely human apprehensions of the attributes of God. While you call this a metaphysical Trinity is not in fact an expression of the nature of God but beliefs about how God has acted in history. This particular idea of a metaphysical trinity, is it your own formulation or that of someone else? Do you have a source for this idea?

The ultimate nature of God is of course unknown. According to Baha'i scripture, it is how the expression of God acts in human history. From the human perspective, facts are illusive. I can provide more references that describe the relationship between God and humanity and Creation in terms of Revelation, and that which God has made manifest.

It is the description in my own words that describes the Baha'i view. Often symbolism is used to describe the relationship. In this case the mirror.

Source: http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/ab/SAQ/saq-27.html

The Divine Reality is sanctified from singleness, then how much more from plurality. The descent of that Lordly Reality into conditions and degrees would be equivalent to imperfection and contrary to perfection, and is, therefore, absolutely impossible. It perpetually has been, and is, in the exaltation of holiness and sanctity. All that is mentioned of the Manifestations and Dawning-places of God signifies the divine reflection, and not a descent into the conditions of existence. 1

God is pure perfection, and creatures are but imperfections. For God to descend into the conditions of existence would be the greatest of imperfections; on the contrary, His manifestation, His appearance, His rising are like the reflection of the sun in a clear, pure, polished mirror. All the creatures are evident signs of God, like the earthly beings upon all of which the rays of the sun shine. But upon the plains, the mountains, the trees and fruits, only a portion [page 114] of the light shines, through which they become visible, and are reared, and attain to the object of their existence, while the Perfect Man 2 is in the condition of a clear mirror in which the Sun of Reality becomes visible and manifest with all its qualities and perfections. So the Reality of Christ was a clear and polished mirror of the greatest purity and fineness. The Sun of Reality, the Essence of Divinity, reflected itself in this mirror and manifested its light and heat in it; but from the exaltation of its holiness, and the heaven of its sanctity, the Sun did not descend to dwell and abide in the mirror. No, it continues to subsist in its exaltation and sublimity, while appearing and becoming manifest in the mirror in beauty and perfection.

© Copyright Original Source

[shunyadragon]

Repeating your assertion does not make it any more true. The first extant use of the word is by Theophilus in the mid-2nd century; the earliest written use of the concept is Mat. 28:19. The deity of the Holy Spirit was last denied by the Messalians post-Nicaea; our first extant defense of the deity of the Holy Spirit is by Athanasius the Great c. AD 350 ([b]after[/i] Nicaea), and the Nicene Creed was fleshed out to explicitly include the Holy Spirit as equal to the Father and the Son at Constantinople in AD 381.

This, of course, was the result of the Council of Nicaea, but that in and of itself does not make it true.

[One Bad Pig]

This, of course, was the result of the Council of Nicaea, but that in and of itself does not make it true.

Your ignorance truly is invincible, isn't it?

[shunyadragon]

Your ignorance truly is invincible, isn't it?

No, unlike you, I admit to be a fallible human as well as those at the Council of Nicaea.

[shunyadragon]

The Baha'i Faith agrees with the Jewish view off the Holy Spirit

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontrinitarianism

The "holy spirit" (also transliterated ruah ha-qodesh) is a term used in the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) and Jewish writings to refer to the Spirit of Yehowah. (The expression in Hebrew is: יהוה .קָדְשְׁך) The Hebrew term ruakh kodeshka, without the definite article, also occurs. The Holy Spirit in Judaism generally refers to the divine aspect of prophecy and wisdom. It also refers to the divine force, quality, and influence of the Most High God, over the universe or over his creatures, in given contexts.[101] It is not considered a separate person of God, but rather God's divine wisdom, breath, or moving power.

© Copyright Original Source

[robrecht]

The Baha'i Faith agrees with the Jewish view off the Holy Spirit

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontrinitarianism

The "holy spirit" (also transliterated ruah ha-qodesh) is a term used in the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) and Jewish writings to refer to the Spirit of Yehowah. (The expression in Hebrew is: יהוה .קָדְשְׁך) The Hebrew term ruakh kodeshka, without the definite article, also occurs. The Holy Spirit in Judaism generally refers to the divine aspect of prophecy and wisdom. It also refers to the divine force, quality, and influence of the Most High God, over the universe or over his creatures, in given contexts.[101] It is not considered a separate person of God, but rather God's divine wisdom, breath, or moving power.

© Copyright Original Source

Very amusing. Please do me a favor. Don't try to cite Hebrew. Or if you do, at least cite a source that understands Hebrew. There's nothing wrong or controversial with the English, by the way.