In the past two weeks, while driving, twice I got lost in thought and went into something like "auto-pilot", and when I came out of my daydream I totally forgot where I was and where I was going to. Both times I touched the breaks to slow down a little while I reconsidered my surroundings and intentions. It was a startling experience. After only a couple of seconds I remembered my plans, and found that I had thus far successfully navigated the roads, turns, traffic lights on my way to my destination.

I  have been meditating a lot recently on the nature of the trinity. I often hear that "nobody can really understand it", and I like to imagine that they only mean we can't understand it in the same sense that we can't understand a 4th or 5th spatial dimension, though the ideas are verily comprehensible. I considered the nature of the word, "logos" and the meaning of its translation as "word" in John; the passages saying, "in the beginning was the Logos/Word", and "the Logos/Word was with God and the Logos/Word was God", and "the Logos/Word took on flesh", (clearly in John 1 talking about Jesus). Also, the passage, "he is the imprint of God" (expressed variously, Col 1:15, Heb 1:3), and finally, "nothing was created except that which was created through him and for him". I'm paraphrasing from memory, so you guys should just go read Colossians 1, Hebrews 1, and John 1.

If God created the world by speaking, and Jesus was with God, and was God, and is the Word of God.... and if it wasn't simply by human style vocalizations that God created the world, because surely God's creative power is not confined to a physical mouth, though he chooses to sustain things by the power of his word, then it seems to me that the true creative force was God's voice inasmuch as it was an expression of God's intent. Expressions of intent, in the case of God, equate to actionable plans as well as inviolable prophesies about the immediate or distant future. Furthermore, given that all action and existence in the universe serves the purpose of glorifying God by expressing His character, expressions of God's plan are also expressions of His character and nature.

So I feel that Hebrews 1:3 makes sense. Jesus, foremost in all things, fulfills History and the Law of God by being, in Himself, a full expression of God's intent, character, and creative design. In this case, speaking of God in relation to Jesus, I believe that it is most proper that "God" refers to the entire trinity including Jesus. That is, as in John 1, The Logos which took on flesh was with God and was God.

Now, applying this idea back onto the verses, I don't think it's altogether incompatible with John 1, especially in that the word translated "word" was "Logos", which more literally translates to "logic" (though seems in Greek writing to take a somewhat more broad meaning than the highly specialized field of thought which we today call "logic"). If logic only exists and governs our experiences in the world because God chose to express His character by means of logic, then we must say that God's character is somehow expressible by means of logic. Indeed, considering the scope of things governed by logical laws (literally everything), I would venture to say that God is logical in character, and even a lover of logic. Furthermore, that all his intents are logical.

To be clear, I am aware that some people will think that miracles are not compatible with logic. I believe that miracles are expressions of God's nature, which is unchanging. Angels also did miracles, and they are limited by certain rules placed on them, lest they be like God. So it's not that miracles violate natural rules (logic); it's rather that we don't fully understand all the natural rules governing the whole of existence (where part of existence is spiritual).

So, I don't think it is too far of a reach to say that the character, intent, plans, and expressions of God can be summarily called "Logos", which we know as Jesus because of the way that this person of the trinity took on flesh.

I don't have a satisfyingly empirical explanation of the trinity.

I noticed when I was young that the feeling I get when I see a beautiful sunset, or a majestic view from a mountain top, is very similar to the feeling I have when I want something. The feeling of appreciating something very beautiful seems to me to be similar to the feeling of longing, and may even be one in the same. That is, that in seeing the sunset I am instantly desirous to have more of it. I am partially satisfied to simply wait in its presence, but ultimately will be left unsatisfied because I can't have all of it. And in the case of a beautiful thing, what does it mean to have all of it? Ownership of a beautiful thing would certainly not satisfy the desire to have more of it, because that desire is incited by gazing on it. Ownership of it only leads to more opportunity to gaze on its beauty and experience further longing. After a lot of thought on this, I concluded that the desire associated with seeing a beautiful sunset is best described as a desire to become one with the sunset; to incorporate it into my being and experience it fully as somehow a part of myself. Thinking about this got me wondering about why God allows us to see amazing sights. Certainly it is to demonstrate his power, but why make it both powerful and beautiful? Certainly it is to demonstrate his creativity, but why have us long after all beauty? I think it is because all beauty is simply a reflection, pointing us to the one exemplification of perfect beauty, which is God, and the finally satisfying experience of whom is heaven indeed.

And I should not forget, for a later blog, I had some thoughts on Acts 10:4.

"...Your prayers and gifts to the poor have come up as a memorial offering before God..."