In the name of the Father, Son and HOly Spirit

[vera_dicere]

So I got into a discussion with a girl I work with. She was arguing that Catholics obviously believe in three Gods seeing as we baptise in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I tried to explain that they are one, but she made the argumen tthat when God became Jesus he told us he wanted to be known as Jesus - that Jesus was his name, and we shouldn’t use God or HS.

I’m interested to hear what people’s rebuttals to this would be. I just simply made some half hearted attempt to explain we are acknowleding the three persons in the trinity.

 

[JRKH]

So I got into a discussion with a girl I work with. She was arguing that Catholics obviously believe in three Gods seeing as we baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

The Trinity is definitely something that is difficult to understand…So her confusion is understandable.

I tried to explain that they are one, but she made the argument that when God became Jesus he told us he wanted to be known as Jesus - that Jesus was his name, and we shouldn’t use God or HS.

Let’s see - When Jesus walked among us He taught us to pray thus - “Our Father…”
So it appears that “Father” is one name that we can use.
When Jesus was Baptized, the sky opened and voice was heard - “this is my son”
So it appears that “Son” - “Jesus” is another name we can use.
Then Jesus promised that once He returned to the Father, He would send the “Paraclete”, a guide, a “Holy Spirit”.
So it appears that “Holy Spirit” is also legitimate…

“God” is not really a name anyway. It is a term used to signify a “supreme being” of some type. When we use the term “God” as Christians, we are speaking of the Triune God composed of the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit. When we are speaking of some particular aspect of God we use the particular name for clarity.

Peace
James

 

[TimothyH]

So I got into a discussion with a girl I work with. She was arguing that Catholics obviously believe in three Gods seeing as we baptise in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I tried to explain that they are one, but she made the argumen tthat when God became Jesus he told us he wanted to be known as Jesus - that Jesus was his name, and we shouldn’t use God or HS.

I’m interested to hear what people’s rebuttals to this would be. I just simply made some half hearted attempt to explain we are acknowleding the three persons in the trinity.

A focus on God’s name and denial of the Trinity sounds Jehovah’s Witness-ish. I wouldn’t be surprised if that is what you are dealing with.

We baptize exactly as Jesus commanded the disciples to do.

Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, (Matthew 28:19)

Jesus himself told us that he was God, several times in fact.

I say to you, something greater than the temple is here. (Matthew 12:6)

The Temple in Jerusalem was where God dwelled with men. The only thing greater than the temple itself was God who dwelt in the temple.

For the Son of Man is Lord of the sabbath. (Matthew 12:8)

The sabbath was made by God. The sabbath was established by God’s authority and given to men. The only one with authority over the sabbath is God himself, and Jesus claims to be “Lord of the sabbath.”

Jesus claims to be greater than the temple, and Lord of the sabbath. These are only two examples. Over and over and over, Jesus tells his disciples, “I am God” and the Phariesees and chief priests accused him of blasphemy and wanted to kill him for it.

-Tim-

 

[Huiou_Theou]

So I got into a discussion with a girl I work with. She was arguing that Catholics obviously believe in three Gods seeing as we baptise in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I tried to explain that they are one, but she made the argumen tthat when God became Jesus he told us he wanted to be known as Jesus - that Jesus was his name, and we shouldn’t use God or HS.

I’m interested to hear what people’s rebuttals to this would be. I just simply made some half hearted attempt to explain we are acknowleding the three persons in the trinity.

In the first place, Jesus AKA Joshua (The names are the same in Hebrew – we translate them differently in English) is literally God’s name abbreviated, followed by the word “saves”. So, Jesus’ name is also the father’s name.

This is why we say “Father” and “Son”. It is also said this way because they are “one” in a way that we image. The only things we can really know about them as persons is their relationship to each other. As human beings we are made in God’s image – and that means we too will have some kind of unity that mirrors what God is like – although it isn’t identical. Sometimes I think of it this way:

Within one human being, their is a left brain lobe and a right brain lobe, and a pair of lungs – but it is “one” brain, and one body (breathing the spirit).

However if the relationship is severed (say the bridge between brain lobes, literally and surgically) then all the sudden strange things start happening such as the right hand will choose one shirt from the closet, but the left hand will choose a different shirt. They no longer one in “communion” with each other and aren’t “One” in the same way as they used to be. In God, there can’t be a surgical division; his lung’s can’t be pulled out (or the whole universe would END.).

There is also within Scripture a different kind of unity spoken of – the unity of Man and Wife (ever noticed the “wedding” feast of the Lamb spoken of by John?). This kind of unity is different than the immediate unity of the body with itself. Marriage doesn’t cause a confusion of mind, or of being. It is also a unity that has to be worked at.

We say of Jesus Christ that he is true God and True man – He was always God, but he is now Also man. That requires something like a perfect marriage that united the body (flesh) with God at the very moment of conception. That person, Jesus Christ, was “formed” not married separately, in a complete state of “perfect” marriage. He has Two wills (divine and human), but he has one “person” for they are connected perhaps more thoroughly than the left and right brains in a human being could ever be united. The spirit which causes the body to live is united with the Sprit (life) and the Son (reception of the Father’s being). A human marriage unites the flesh and the spiritual union is something that grows (or doesn’t) with time. A human Spirit will eventually be seperated from the body – a marriage will end – but God’s spirit can never be separated in the same sense. (this would take a lengthy explanation… and I wait to see if you are interested.)

What do you think she is really probing at, this woman you are speaking with?
I would need to know more of what she says in order to direct your comments, especially as this is the scripture forum – so I assume there is some religious affiliation that she is with? perhaps Jehova’s witness?

in any event, peace to you.
Your brother in Christ,
–Andrew.

 

[Church_Militant]

The fact that her cult rejects the clear reference to the interactions of the Trinitarian persons in scripture is indicative of her error. She is very likely what is known as a “Oneness” Pentecostal or perhaps a JW.

They choose to ignore the “one unity” in the Hebrew word “echad” in the Sh’ma Israel in Deuteronomy 6:4, which is the very same word used in Genesis 2:24 where it says, “and they shall be two in one [echad} flesh.”

Also, we see that in the creation of man, where the plural is used when God says in [/COLOR]
Genesis 1:26
And he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth.

God is not some doddering old fool muttering to Himself, obviously.

Then there is Matthew 3:[16] And Jesus being baptized, forthwith came out of the water: and lo, the heavens were opened to him: and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon him. [17] And behold a voice from heaven, saying: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

The entire Trinity is here interacting.

 

[kwortham]

So I got into a discussion with a girl I work with. She was arguing that Catholics obviously believe in three Gods seeing as we baptise in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I tried to explain that they are one, but she made the argumen tthat when God became Jesus he told us he wanted to be known as Jesus - that Jesus was his name, and we shouldn’t use God or HS.

I’m interested to hear what people’s rebuttals to this would be. I just simply made some half hearted attempt to explain we are acknowleding the three persons in the trinity.

Of course, the ultimate guide to the Holy Trinity was written by Saint Augustin. He covered everything that is humanly possible to grasp on the Trinity. If one reads the 15 books of Augustin on the Trinity and still does not grasp the concept of the Trinity, then you are dealing with a case of invincible ignorance. The Holy Spirit through Augustin has written the book “The Trinity for dummies.” You can find these 15 books here:

newadvent.org/fathers/1301.htm

You need to dissect your co-workers arguments and answer the pieces by consulting Augustin.

An example in answering deniers of Christ as God is found in Book 1 Chapter 13 Paragraph 30. Most christians understand that Christ was made flesh to fulfill the law and save us. However, most christians have never considered that Christ was made flesh so that He can sit in judgement of us at the end. Only the pure can see God as He truly is. However, God, The Son, was made flesh so that even the evil can see Him at the judgement. It is a divine concept that everyone, including the evil, has the right to face their accuser and judge.

 

[De_Maria]

So I got into a discussion with a girl I work with. She was arguing that Catholics obviously believe in three Gods seeing as we baptise in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I tried to explain that they are one, but she made the argumen tthat when God became Jesus he told us he wanted to be known as Jesus - that Jesus was his name, and we shouldn’t use God or HS.

I’m interested to hear what people’s rebuttals to this would be. I just simply made some half hearted attempt to explain we are acknowleding the three persons in the trinity.

My rebuttal would be, “where does it say that in Scripture? I want to see the text where Jesus says, You are no longer to pray to the Father or the Holy Spirit. Otherwise, I would have to say that you, my dear lady, are adding words to Scripture. And you know what Scripture says about that, don’t you?” Revelation 22:18

 

[Joe_Kelley]

So I got into a discussion with a girl I work with. She was arguing that Catholics obviously believe in three Gods seeing as we baptise in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I tried to explain that they are one, but she made the argumen tthat when God became Jesus he told us he wanted to be known as Jesus - that Jesus was his name, and we shouldn’t use God or HS…

Jesus said:

9… baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

Also note that He says the name, not the names. it is one name for they are one.

However, the JW’s have their own translation, which differs from all others in a number of places.

 

[vera_dicere]

Thanks everyone, this is exactly the sort of stuff I’m needing.

I don’t think she’s a JW, she said she was a “non-denominational Christian”, having been raised Anglican and then having a falling out with a rather apathetic pastor who refused to baptise a dying relative.

I do work with a JW so this stuff is going to come in handy.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Thanks everyone, this is exactly the sort of stuff I’m needing.

I don’t think she’s a JW, she said she was a “non-denominational Christian”, having been raised Anglican and then having a falling out with a rather apathetic pastor who refused to baptise a dying relative.

I do work with a JW so this stuff is going to come in handy.

Be sure to phrase what you say to the JW gently. They, along with Mormons, are taught that rejection (itself) proves that their opinions from the bible are correct.
eg: Jesus said that if you speak his words, the “world” will hate you.
Rejection certainly can be caused by speaking Jesus’ words to the world – but it can also be caused by being obstinately wrong. They often don’t see the distinction and it’s an emotional trap for them. (as it can be for us, too, if we aren’t careful.)

The unity of the body of man and wife, taught clearly in Genesis – and re-affirmed by Jesus as “Law” (esp. regarding divorce) – it a very good thing to keep in mind when discussing the trinity with JW’s. For they see the trinity as an “amalgam” or “confusion” – but it is easily pointed out we are made in God’s image – and that man and wife become “one” without confusion of brain or even body – although we do give each other the “slime” of the earth from which Adam was formed; and we do have children which are “us” according to the flesh. My children are me and my wife, in the sense of his body.

A second thing to keep in mind, is that “firstborn” means highest quality, or “first fruits”. The allusion is to the degradation that bodies usually suffer through bearing children (stretch marks, anyone???), and often [but not always] the child who receives the best nutrition and head-start is the first child.

God called Israel (as a nation), his “firstborn” son in Exodus – but God decalred his “firstborn” as “Israel” to Pharaoh head of “Egypt”; and notice: Egypt (the nation) existed even before Abraham was born.

Israel isn’t the first nation to come into existence – and Egypt does belong to God – who is called the father of all (esp. government). St. Paul talks about obeying all civil authority which comes from God.

It may be a good idea to consider/discuss whether or not Egypt really was the “firstborn” Son & nation (or if another nation was, before even Egypt??) – whom God disowned, or if these earlier nation(s) simply failed to be of good quality (first-quality AKA. Proto-token) in God’s eyes – and were rejected.

If the discussion is done tactfully, it will probably produce a fruitful conversation…

There are several other points about the J.W.'s doctrines that are important to study if you do get into a deeper scriptural argument with them. I find that often apologists attack some of their views un-neccessarily harshly.

The saying of God – that he made man in his image – is understood even in Catholic theology to potentially (or also…) include the heavenly court of Angels who are called “Sons of God” in scripture. We have spirits, the same as God, and the Angels – TOO – have spirits. So it isn’t a contradiction. They have a part in the ordering of our present world – and that is also why the devil will be damned with the remains of this world.

I DO think it quite appropriate to see the trinity as included in those words in Genesis – but I don’t think it something to use as an absolute apologetic against the J.W.'s.

If you break your conversations up into shorter pieces, telling them you need to think about what they say – because it seems at least partially right but there is something you can’t quite put your finger on that you want to share – that may help you get beyond the pressure of having to answer right away when you don’t know “the” right answer. We all have to learn – it’s no shame.

Regarding the friend at hand, rather than the hypothetical encounter to come:

Did she or anyone else attempt to baptize the dying friend? Did the dying friend want baptism, or were they against it?

I’m wondering, because if she tried but used the wrong formula; there may be a deeper guilt feeling which is actually at the root of her argument. That would require us to talk about baptism and the Name of the Trinity in a different way.
eg: along the lines of the hope for those not sacramentally baptized in this world. She needs to know that all hope is not lost even if there was a failure to show forth the sign of baptism.

Your brother in Christ, Jesus.
–Andrew.