Are the Persons of the Trinity different? (Jesus Christ, tradition, creation)

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by Elvendon

I do like the idea of the hypostases of the Trinity being distinguishable and having their own unique nature - The Father as the source of the Son and the Spirit, the Son as the creative and salvation effector and the Spirit as the omnipresent comforter and link between all things.

This raises three questions in my mind...

How can two being who have, as their "source," be "co-eternal" with that source? That sounds like a contradiction to me.

Is the Holy Ghost the only ontologically "omnipresent" person of the Trinity? Is Jesus Christ, for example, also "omnipresent"? If so, what happened to the body of flesh and bones with which He ascended into Heaven following His resurrection?

What is the purpose of the Holy Ghost? Specifically, how does His role differ from the role of God the Father? What, if anything, does He do that the Father does not do?

[Elvendon]

Originally Posted by Katzpur

This raises three questions in my mind...

How can two being who have, as their "source," be "co-eternal" with that source? That sounds like a contradiction to me.

Look at it this way -

Imagine a mountain. Upon this mountain is a moor. The weather patterns around the mountain change, and the moor is filled with water. From the moment the moor water forms into an aquifer, the aquifer produces a river. The river flows down the mountain, and nourises the fields of wheat below.

Now, the aquifer is the source of the river. The moment the aquifer became an aquifer, it produced the river. That doesn't mean the aquifer isn't the source.

Similarly, the Father has always produced the Son and the Spirit - though that doesn't negate from the Father's status as the divine origin.

Is the Holy Ghost the only ontologically "omnipresent" person of the Trinity? Is Jesus Christ, for example, also "omnipresent"? If so, what happened to the body of flesh and bones with which He ascended into Heaven following His resurrection?

Jesus and the Father are omnipresent insofar as they are through the Holy Spirit. I would perhaps say a provisional "yes" to that question.

What is the purpose of the Holy Ghost? Specifically, how does His role differ from the role of God the Father? What, if anything, does He do that the Father does not do?

The Holy Ghost is the paraclete - the comforter, the fire of God's love. It is the Spirit that links us to God and to each other. It guides further revelation and insight of humanity into the Word. In my view, it links the souls of all things, human, animal, plant or mineral, and forms what is considered to be the "spirit world" by other faiths.

In short, the Spirit is the Sustainer, the Son is the Creator and the Father is the Supreme Transcendent Origin. Jesus created the link between the Father and Humanity, the Holy Spirit forms the medium through which we travel along that link.

[James the Persian]

Originally Posted by Elvendon

Look at it this way -

Imagine a mountain. Upon this mountain is a moor. The weather patterns around the mountain change, and the moor is filled with water. From the moment the moor water forms into an aquifer, the aquifer produces a river. The river flows down the mountain, and nourises the fields of wheat below.

Now, the aquifer is the source of the river. The moment the aquifer became an aquifer, it produced the river. That doesn't mean the aquifer isn't the source.

Similarly, the Father has always produced the Son and the Spirit - though that doesn't negate from the Father's status as the divine origin.



Jesus and the Father are omnipresent insofar as they are through the Holy Spirit. I would perhaps say a provisional "yes" to that question.



The Holy Ghost is the paraclete - the comforter, the fire of God's love. It is the Spirit that links us to God and to each other. It guides further revelation and insight of humanity into the Word. In my view, it links the souls of all things, human, animal, plant or mineral, and forms what is considered to be the "spirit world" by other faiths.

In short, the Spirit is the Sustainer, the Son is the Creator and the Father is the Supreme Transcendent Origin. Jesus created the link between the Father and Humanity, the Holy Spirit forms the medium through which we travel along that link.

Excellent post. I agree wholeheartedly.

James

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by Elvendon

Look at it this way -

Imagine a mountain. Upon this mountain is a moor. The weather patterns around the mountain change, and the moor is filled with water. From the moment the moor water forms into an aquifer, the aquifer produces a river. The river flows down the mountain, and nourises the fields of wheat below.

Now, the aquifer is the source of the river. The moment the aquifer became an aquifer, it produced the river. That doesn't mean the aquifer isn't the source.

Similarly, the Father has always produced the Son and the Spirit - though that doesn't negate from the Father's status as the divine origin.

Elvendon,

Thanks for your explanation. I'll have to admit that it's a better one than I'm used to seeing. I can't help but wonder, though, if the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are co-eternal, would it be just as accurate to say that the river was the source of the aquifer? Since the word "source" describes the place of origin from which something else comes, it seems to me that the source would have to exist before that which came from it. Does that make sense?

Jesus and the Father are omnipresent insofar as they are through the Holy Spirit. I would perhaps say a provisional "yes" to that question.

So it sounds to me as if you're saying Jesus Christ, at least, is functionally omnipresent as opposed to ontologically omnipresent. Would that be an accurate statement? I, too, believe that He is fun functionally present, in other words, that his knowledge and power permeate the universe. I don't believe that He is ontologically (i.e. physically) omnipresent, since I'm assuming that He still has the flesh and bones body with which He ascended into Heaven. You didn't answer my question concerning what you believe His physical state to be now. I'm still curious about that.

The Holy Ghost is the paraclete - the comforter, the fire of God's love. It is the Spirit that links us to God and to each other. It guides further revelation and insight of humanity into the Word. In my view, it links the souls of all things, human, animal, plant or mineral, and forms what is considered to be the "spirit world" by other faiths.

While my belief system does not use the word "paraclete," that definition suits me fine. Of course, I believe that He is called the "Holy Ghost" specifically because He is the only person in the Godhead/Trinity to be solely a spirit entity. If God the Father is also both "holy" and "spirit," it seems strange to me that the Holy Ghost would be referred to by a term that could just as easily be applied to the Father.

[Elvendon]

Originally Posted by Katzpur

Elvendon,

Thanks for your explanation. I'll have to admit that it's a better one than I'm used to seeing. I can't help but wonder, though, if the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are co-eternal, would it be just as accurate to say that the river was the source of the aquifer? Since the word "source" describes the place of origin from which something else comes, it seems to me that the source would have to exist before that which came from it. Does that make sense?

Yes, I think so. I'd have to disagree, the river could never be the source of the aquifer. Essentially, one may imagine it this way - the Father could exist without the Son and the Spirit (but never has done and never would) but the Son and Spirit could not exist or come into existence without the Father. Thus the Father is the origin.

So it sounds to me as if you're saying Jesus Christ, at least, is functionally omnipresent as opposed to ontologically omnipresent. Would that be an accurate statement? I, too, believe that He is fun functionally present, in other words, that his knowledge and power permeate the universe. I don't believe that He is ontologically (i.e. physically) omnipresent, since I'm assuming that He still has the flesh and bones body with which He ascended into Heaven. You didn't answer my question concerning what you believe His physical state to be now. I'm still curious about that.

I didn't answer because I don't know However, going on scripture, I'd have to say that he is still flesh and bone, as he ascended bodily into heaven. I'd agree about the functionally/ontologically thing also.

While my belief system does not use the word "paraclete," that definition suits me fine. Of course, I believe that He is called the "Holy Ghost" specifically because He is the only person in the Godhead/Trinity to be solely a spirit entity. If God the Father is also both "holy" and "spirit," it seems strange to me that the Holy Ghost would be referred to by a term that could just as easily be applied to the Father.

Hmm that is certainly quite sensible. I usually prefer Holy Spirit because the word Ghost always conjures up images of departed spirits in my head, rather than the all-pervading essence of the divine, so its more a matter of preference. I'm not sure it's that important however...

[piglet17]

< Are the persons of the trinity in any way distinct from each other? >
Yes. The Father's the Father. The Son's the Son. The Spirit's the Spirit

< do they have different roles? >
The Father's souce. The Son's course. The Spirit's application

< different nature's or suchlike? >
The have one Being. God.
Thanx