The word “name” does not have to be singular or plural.But looking at the phrase “The the name of the father and the son and holy spirit” what does name mean? Is there a philosophic meaning Thomist or other wise?
So there is no special metaphysical meaning to “name” as might be spoken of in summa or such?The word “name” does not have to be singular or plural.
The three persons are named one at a time thus permitting singularity to the word,
yet in time all three are named.
Since the way the prayer it written, either “name” or “names” had to be used, “name” was used and everybody understands what is meant.
I don’t think so.So there is no special metaphysical meaning to “name” as might be spoken of in summa or such?
They argue that the name of the persons are “Jesus”. I tried to explain he was speaking of nature when he is divine, but had one person, the son. They said it’s one God with different “offices” or “actions”. Sounds like “modes”. Classic modalism to me.I don’t think so.
Everybody has a name. So saying somebody has a name doesn’t mean much.
Most people have a left foot but saying somebody has a left foot doesn’t mean much.
The phrase in the name of does not refer to actual personal names. It is a phrase that implies on behalf of or by the authority of. I could say, “In the name of all good things on earth, please shut up,” that doesn’t mean every good thing on earth has a personal name.I know some oneness pentecostals that talk about the “name” of the 3 persons. They call the persons “titles” which I have never heard any catholic or protestant theology mention. They are just modalists or sebellianists. But looking at the phrase “The the name of the father and the son and holy spirit” what does name mean? Is there a philosophic meaning Thomist or other wise?