Explain the Trinity

[BurtWorm]

:popcorn:

[evlbstrd]

1. Oh, Jesus, Mary and Joseph!

No, that's not it.

[BurtWorm]

3. I was just reading this morning that official church doctrine (Catholic, anyway)

is that Jesus has none of Mary's "substance" in him, because he's one with the Father and the Holy Spirit. I'd like to have that one explained too.

:popcorn:

[evlbstrd]

56. Easy.

Virgin birth. She was nothing but a vessle. Her DNA was of no use.

[BurtWorm]

57. God probably didn't invent DNA until 1953 anyway

when he decided to fool scientists in thinking it was the blueprint of all lifeforms.

:think:

[evlbstrd]

58. That just made it easier to ignore.

[Christa]

2. Uhm

God is his son, and his son is a (holy) ghost, all three are one. The father killed his son, and in effect committed suicide, as he is the son as well. Then the dead son/father resurrected himself, I am not sure where the (holy) ghost comes in :shrug:

[BurtWorm]

5. Thank you for clarifying that.

:crazy:

[Christa]

10. You're welcome

I think the (holy) ghost has something to do with both other gods being dead, someone had to hold the fort.

[jeff30997]

12. I'm a Catholic and I can assure you that...

The holy ghost's name is Casper.:)But seriously

I never understood that mumbo-jumbo either.

[Christa]

17. hee hee hee

Casper :think:

It amazes me how it is being explained from the pulpit .... I dont even think they understand their own mumbo jumbo.

[siligut]

108. If it's three it's masonic.

Sorry. Masonic myth has three as a magic number. You can see it in Freudian logic as the superego, ego and id: God in the current trend of Christianity is the ego, Jesus is the superego and satan is the id.

[Swede]

4. Carrots,onions and celery are the base of all good soups.

Unless you're Cajun,then it's carrots,onions and peppers.

[Goblinmonger]

35. Now that's a religion

I can follow. If you don't start your soup with nicely sauteed and seasoned carrots, onions, and celery, then I don't want none. Nope.

[jgraz]

70. That would be *celery*, onions and peppers

And yes, that IS my god.

[YOY]

6. St. Patrick used a Shamrock to explain it...I use an alchoholic Chimp with one leg

Three limbs but all the same pathetic drunken Chimp. It has so much more comedic flare than the shamrock thing...

[jeff30997]

14. So in other words...

Bush=God ? :crazy:

[YOY]

20. That's the only reason RW Catholics would vote for a born again.

Or so I reason it. :evilgrin:

[Finder]

7. Shamrock...

(three leafed clover)...at least that is how I understood it back in my theist days and how I explain it to my children.

[BurtWorm]

9. So it's the Father, the Son, the Holy Ghost, and the stem?

:dunce:

(And the fourth leaf if you're lucky!)

[TlalocW]

8. She was a character in the Matrix

What more do you need to know?

TlalocW

[Ian David]

11. It's a convenient loophole to The First Commandment n/t

[RethugAssKicker]

13. Of Ancient Egyptian Origin

I believe Amon, Ra, and Osiris.


There are many concepts such as the Virgin Birth, Life after Death, One God... that stems from Ancient Egypt.

[BurtWorm]

31. It seems more to stem from a problem Christians saddled themselves with.

How to reconcile their simultaneous worship of the supposedly historic figure of Jesus as a god and their claim to be monotheistic (given their insistence that monotheism is the crown of all theisms).

[thoughtanarchist]

15. Thesis, antithesis, synthesis.

Force, form and product.

St Patrick is credited with Catholicizing another spiritual tennet that predates christianity.

[Solomon]

63. Yep. That's it. Or another way of saying it is Father,Mother, and Child.

[yella_dawg]

16. The best explanation I've found

is that the doctrine of the Trinity arose from lengthy writings of a Pagan Druid who hid from the religious purges in Gaul by joining the Christian Church. The whole idea of the Trinity arises from Pagan belief, not Christian belief. It was promoted because the Church would basically adopt anything to ease the conversion of the heathen. Thus "Happy Saturnalia to ALL!"

[Brentos]

18. Okay.

The Trinity is three aspects of the same being.

Father, Son, Holy Spirit


To think of it in human terms, and simplify: imagine a person who has a child. He can be Father to the child. Son to his own father, and lover to his wife. His displays three different types of love to three different people, but is still the same being. He is a father, son, and lover.

God, the Father is like the parent, the creator God. In Jesus, the Son aspect, he shows us a more human side. In the Holy Spirit, he attaches His love to us.

[BurtWorm]

22. Assuming there actually was a Jesus, and Christianity is genuinely monotheistic

did God suffer on the cross and die?

[Brentos]

45. Yes, and no

The flesh-y part of his human body died. His spirit never did and, in fact, resurrected his body.

[BurtWorm]

52. So only flesh suffers? Spirit doesn't suffer?

Or just God's spirit doesn't suffer?

[Brentos]

80. Hmmm

How does a spirit suffer? That is a good question. God's faith never suffers, but he can be grieved. I'll have to look into the spirit suffering, I've never thought too much about the suffering of a spirit and what that even means. Good question.

[Zhade]

101. "in fact"

Your certainty over events utterly lacking in corroborating evidence is charming.

[Realityhack]

100. In that case...

Jeasus praying to and talking to God strikes me as a bit schitzo.

[Brentos]

106. Not when...

Not when his primary job was to be a model for people to follow. He was modeling behaviors, that unfortunately, too many Christians chose not to follow.

[BurtWorm]

110. Who witnessed Jesus modeling that behavior, by the way?

Who was with him in the garden? Or when he uttered "Eloi, eloi?" How do we know he said those things?

[Ron Green]

19. Head, heart, hands

God: the mind, the "brains" of the operation

Jesus: the expression of divine love in human form

Holy spirit: the action throughout the world, enabled by the spirit


Whaddya think?

[Christa]

21. The head, the heart and the hands?

[Christa]

23. Sorry

I did not see you allready typed head, heart and hands ;)

[yellowcanine]

26. Add "health" and you have 4-H

4-H Pledge

I pledge
My head to clearer thinking,
My heart to greater loyalty,
My hands to larger service, and
My health to better living,
For my club, my community, my country, and my world.


And as far as know, no one has evee killed anyone in the name of 4-H, so maybe it is more useful for society than the Trinity.

[ashling]

24. Big Daddy, J.C. and The Spook

Then there is the Unitarian / Universalist Trinity: Reduce, Reuse, Recycle

[Silent3]

25. I'm amused by the awe that the "Mystery of the Trinity"...

...seems to engender in some people, when the only "mystery" is the dilemma of how to reconcile a bunch of incompatible human-made bits of dogma.

It's as if one sect believed that God had three sides, another believed God had four sides, and when the two sects decided to join forces, they just punted and agreed to say that God is a three-sided square, all the more "amazing" since they just can't figure out how God manages to do that -- further proof that God is an awesome dude we should all worship.

(And no, a pyramid is NOT a three-sided square.)

[trotsky]

37. Hehe

...all the more "amazing" since they just can't figure out how God manages to do that -- further proof that God is an awesome dude we should all worship.

An awful lot of theology seems to come down to that, doesn't it? "Wow, what I just postulated makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to our feeble human minds. Praise God!"

[Zhade]

102. K4K, have I told you lately that I love you?

Seriously, I love your posts.

[kwassa]

27. Three aspects of the same being.

I think describing God in only three aspects is a pretty good trick. Earlier religions required a vast host to do so.

here is a good explanation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity

[BurtWorm]

28. If Jesus is God, did he suffer and die?

Or is that question just a theological parlor game, involving an answer like "he did and he didn't"?

It seems like an awful lot of Christian theology is making excuses for inherent contradictions and impossibilities. Maybe this is true of all religions, but Christianity seems especially prone to it, given the material it had to work with. It would seem to make so much more sense if Christianity shucked either the insistence on the historicity of Jesus or the philosophical shoe-horning his alleged hostoricity requires of them.

[kwassa]

47. Sorry Christianity isn't living up to your requirements

which disturbs a number of it's critics around here .... but much in the nature of spiritual exploration involves many apparent contradictions, improbabilities if not impossibilities, and even worse, ambiguities.

Like the Zen riddles.

Did Jesus suffer and die? Of course he did, or there would be no basis for this religion at all.

[BurtWorm]

51. God alone is not basis enough?

Is Christianity monotheistic or isn't it? Do you worship Abraham's/Mohammed's god or not?

[kwassa]

72. Is it productive to try to rewrite religious history?

Much of your line of questioning seems to circle around the wish that things had been different in early church history than they were. That's fine, but we are a couple thousand years into this now, and I don't think people are going to go back and start over.

[BurtWorm]

76. I'm just looking at what the early church did and questioning why

2000 years on Christians are still under the sway of this bewitched theology that was specific to its time, 300 years removed from the alleged life of Christ.

[kwassa]

85. Bewitched?

If Christianity was that specific to its time and place, it wouldn't have the more universal appeal that has sustained it for the past 2000 years.

[BurtWorm]

86. It's sustained its spread because of the lasting influence of Rome

on the political and social structure of the world.

[kwassa]

88. It also sustained because of the appeal of it's message.

Christianity won immediate converts throughout the empire, as the Christians practiced what Jesus preached.

There were plenty of rival religions around.

[kiahzero]

89. Yeah... the point of a sword had absolutely nothing to do with it. (n/t)

[smirkymonkey]

60. Here is why I think Jesus had to suffer and die....

So that the powerful could control the masses by making suffering and death a sacrament, since it was noble, holy and good enough for Jesus, so it better be good enough for you, dammit!

Slave away, sacrifice, reject pleasure and happiness in this life and you will be rewarded in heaven and be granted eternal life. Meanwhile, the powerful and ruthless grow richer by your acceptance of their superiority and dominance because the Bible said that's the way it should be.

I think the whole concept of hierarchy (whether it be in a family, a school or a corporation) was put forth by the early Christians and therefore most of us still act like slaves around individuals who are "above" us. It's all socially constructed and it's all bullshit.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

29. From a Christian viewpoint or a mystical one?

Christian-as told to me by my minister at my confirmation class back in '63 (Methodist, btw)-the Christian churches that embrace the concept of the Trinity see it in two different ways: God, the Father, who is like no other; Jesus, the Son, who is the unique combination of God and Man, and the Holy Spirit, which ministers and comforts mankind. OR God, the Father, who is the Vast Goodness; Jesus the Son, who is Goodness yet not so vast, and the Holy Spirit, which ministers and comforts mankind. Stress was on exactly the nature of God - Jesus - Mankind in these classes.

My personal take-there is only God. The Trinity tried to get at this concept by explaining that enlightened beings like Jesus point the way, but that there dwells within each of us the Holy Spirit, which is, in reality, the Only Being. We don't realize this until the veils of ego are removed and we become enlightened ourselves.

[BurtWorm]

30. My take on those views

Christian: nonsense, trying to disguise itself as sense; polytheism pretending to be monotheism; an elaborate (but rickety) plan to have one's cake while eating it.

Your take: I think you're glossing over the Christian will to make Jesus both God and a historic figure, which he cannot possibly be/have been.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

32. You may be right

Personally, I've found personal experience of things to be more valuable than words and definitions, anyway.

[BurtWorm]

33. The words and definitions are apparently very valuable to organizers of religion.

Without them, there would be no organized religion.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

34. isn't it refreshing

to know that you don't have to have religion to be enlightened? Check out Eckhardt Tolle, and you'll know what I mean.

[greyl]

38. Eckhart Tolle is a post-Christian bullshit artist who is simply

repackaging new-age Faith Salad ideas for those that are wise enough to notice garbage in the religion they grew up with, but still have emotional attachments to believing in a selfish God.

Check out Ken Keyes, Dan Millman, Deepak Chopra, and Shakti Gawain, and you may see what I mean.

[kiahzero]

126. "Faith Salad?" (n/t)

[Lydia Leftcoast]

36. The Trinity is different aspects of the same Being

Some clergy at my current church use "Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier" instead of "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."

[TechBear_Seattle]

39. You edge into the Modalist heresy

Modalism claims that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three different "modes" or "states of being." In modern terms, it is akin to saying that the Trinity is the vapor, liquid and solid states of God. Also called Sabellianism, from a promenant supporter, Sabellius, a priest and theologian who taught this doctrine in the third century. Sabellius was excommunicated as a heretic by the Bishop of Rome (Pope), Calixtus I, in 220. Formally declared a heretical doctrine as a result of the Nicene Council in 325, and subsequent councils.

:hi:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

42. Oh, well, I'll wear sackcloth and ashes

to choir practice tomorrow. :-)

[TechBear_Seattle]

44. Just go with off-the-rack

Same thing; just ask Betty Bowers. :rofl:

[TechBear_Seattle]

40. Consider the "Creed" of St. Athanasius

Wikipedia entry for the Athanasian Creed, which is considered the authoritative statement on the nature of the Trinity. In part:

Now this is the catholic faith: We worship one God in trinity and the Trinity in unity, neither confusing the persons nor dividing the divine being.
For the Father is one person, the Son is another, and the Spirit is still another.
But the deity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one, equal in glory, coeternal in majesty.
What the Father is, the Son is, and so is the Holy Spirit.
Uncreated is the Father; uncreated is the Son; uncreated is the Spirit.
The Father is infinite; the Son is infinite; the Holy Spirit is infinite.
Eternal is the Father; eternal is the Son; eternal is the Spirit:
And yet there are not three eternal beings, but one who is eternal;
as there are not three uncreated and unlimited beings, but one who is uncreated and unlimited.

...

As Christian truth compels us to acknowledge each distinct person as God and Lord, so catholic religion forbids us to say that there are three gods or lords.
The Father was neither made nor created nor begotten;
the Son was neither made nor created, but was alone begotten of the Father;
the Spirit was neither made nor created, but is proceeding from the Father and the Son.
Thus there is one Father, not three fathers; one Son, not three sons; one Holy Spirit, not three spirits.
And in this Trinity, no one is before or after, greater or less than the other;
but all three persons are in themselves, coeternal and coequal; and so we must worship the Trinity in unity and the one God in three persons.

Added: I put the word creed in quotes for a reason. This statement -- commonly known as the Quicumque vult, from the first two words of the Latin version -- is not a formal, authentic creed in the theological sense (only the Apostle's Creed and Nicene Creed fit that description.) It is frequently called the "Symbol" of Athanasius, to help make this distinction.

[BurtWorm]

41. " neither confusing the persons nor dividing the divine being. "

Yeah right!

;)

[BurtWorm]

43. I find it interesting, as that idiot Bush says, that no one will address

my question about whether or not God suffered and died. (Of course, it's all speculation, anyway, but when does that stop anyone from sharing their wisdom on matters theological? ;) )

[TechBear_Seattle]

46. Your question was to explain the Trinity

Don't come off like a Republican, changing the question after people have started giving answers you didn't like. :hi:

But to answer your new question in light of the old question.... The Son suffered, died, descended to the Dead, was resurrected after three days and latter ascended into Heaven. The Son is God. So God suffered, died, etc.

On the other hand, the Father did not suffer, die, etc. The Father is God. So God did not suffer, die, etc.

However, "The Father is God; the Son is God; the Holy Spirit is God: And yet there are not three gods, but one God."

So I suppose the closest thing to a correct answer is a definite "Yes and no."

[BurtWorm]

49. How can that be a change of subject?

:wtf:

The subject is the Trinity/monogod, and my question is about whether or not it suffers and dies.

As usual, the best answer Christianity can offer is "Yes and no."

In other words, "Have your cake and eat it."

In other, other words, " "

[kiahzero]

59. Your "in other words" are incorrect.

One aspect of the Trinity is held to have suffered and died. It's inaccurate to talk about that event happening to the other two aspects.

[BurtWorm]

61. If the aspects are all one and the same being, then the event happened to It, no?

Does an event happen to my hair or my fingernail or my elbow but not to me? Of course you could say an event could happen to my hair but not my fingernail, but is that what these aspects are to each other? Jesus and the other two are just limbs of God? But I thought they all *were* God.

[kiahzero]

64. An aspect isn't a part.

As I understand the Christian Trinity, the three aspects are ways of looking at the whole... I could very well be wrong about this though. However, an "aspect" generally does not refer to a discrete part of a larger whole, but a way of looking at that whole, or that whole in a certain role. I can think of two analogies: one religious, and one not. The religious analogy is the Advaita Vedanta Hinduism understanding of Atman and Brahman. Both refer to the same concept of oneness, but from different perspectives. The non-religious analogy is polymorphism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymorphism_in_object-oriented_programming .

[BurtWorm]

65. It can mean "a part," and has been used in that sense in some examples given here.

But your point is taken. It still boils down to the same goo on the bottom of the pot, and I'm not sure it describes anything real at all. It's difficult not to think the reason for the doctrine in the first place had less to do with theology than late-imperial Roman politics, which makes it even more dicey as a concept than it would be if it really were an honest bit of theology.

[kiahzero]

66. Three-as-one wasn't a Christian innovation

Shocking, I know, that Christianity would have concepts which bear marked resemblance to pre-existing pagan concepts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_Goddess

[BurtWorm]

67. Are those triads single being or groups?

The link you take us to implies they're groups, unlike the Trinity.

Another major difference between the Trinity and those triads is that the former was cobbled together by committee as history watched and recorded. It can't hide behind a shroud of mystery and pretend to be organic. Its seams are showing, all over.

[kiahzero]

68. Fair enough.

However, to quote the article:
In ancient Indo-European mythologies, various goddesses or demi-goddesses appear as a triad, either as three separate beings who always appear as a group (the Greek Moirae, Charites, Erinnyes and the Norse Norns) or as a single deity who is commonly depicted in three aspects (The Greek Hecate). Often it is ambiguous whether a single being or three are represented, as is the case with the Irish Brighid and her two sisters, also called Brighid.

As it mentions, the article on Hecate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hecate , specifically the Mythology section) has some more information on her depiction as a Triple Goddess.

Your argument regarding the theology-by-committee is perfectly fair.

[TechBear_Seattle]

74. Trinities were common in pagan religions, yes. However...

The Christian doctrine of the Trinity -- three separate, distinct and entirely separate Persons who together make up ONE deity was an innovation. Look at the Athanasian Creed, mentioned elsewhere in this thread. This elaborate theology is entirely unique and not found elsewhere, which is why Athansius and other Trinitarians had to fight so hard to get it established.

[kiahzero]

77. That doesn't work linguistically

three separate, distinct and entirely separate Persons who together make up ONE deity was an innovation

If the three together make up on deity, they aren't "separate, distinct, and entirely separate."

[BurtWorm]

79. I agree with you.

They're polygods.

[TechBear_Seattle]

82. It makes perfect sense in the Latin of the late Roman Empire

The problem is that the Latin words persona and substantia are only poorly translated into English as "person" and "substance." See post #75 for an explanation.

[TechBear_Seattle]

73. "Aspect" is incorrect.

The correct term is "person." Aspect implies identical except for point of view, which has been classed as heresy since before even the Nicene Council in 325 CE.

[BurtWorm]

75. So monotheism *is* out the window?

Why does Christianity then pretend to be monotheistic? What's so important about monotheism that Christianity has to deny its essential polytheism?

[TechBear_Seattle]

81. ONE God with THREE Persons

Look again as the Athanasian Creed: Thus the Father is God; the Son is God; the Holy Spirit is God: And yet there are not three gods, but one God. Becuase orthodox Christianity claims to have one god, it is monotheistic.

The problem in understanding comes from the fact that much of Christian theology derives directly from Classical philosophy, which is little studied nowadays. At the heart of Western Christianity (expressed in Latin and the basis for Roman Catholic, Anglican and Protestan traditions) is the doctrine that God has one substantia and three personae.

Substantia, or "substance" in English, is a very specific neo-Platonic concept describing the immaterial, spiritual, and "true" qualities of something. Substance is the complement of forma, or form, which is the material "shape" of the things we see, smell, taste, etc. Many Christian theological concepts, particularly transubstantiation and the nature of the Sacraments, are derived directly from this perceived distinction. So the doctrine of the Trinity holds that God has a single substance, a single immaterial "truth."

The Athanasian Creed specifically rejects that God has three different formae; such a doctrine would have been Modalism. Instead, Trinitarians hold that God has three different personae, "persons." Persona originally described the mask worn by actors on a stage; the term was adopted by neo-Platonists to mean a particular way in which substantia expresses itself. It is not a forma; while a persona can take material form, it does not have to, nor does any particular physical manifestation of a mask have to resemble any other physical manifestation of the same mask.

Mind you, this was an awkward concept back in the 3rd and 4th centuries, when Trinitarianism was first being promulgated and every educated person understood what was meant by persona and subtantia (and the similar Greek concepts of hypostaseis and ousia.) A great many pagan rejected Trinitarianism for being based on skewed logic, and even many educated Christians rejected it (Arian and Unitarian Christianity have always existed, no matter how much effort Trinitarians put into exterminating these competing beliefs.) So don't feel bad if you don't get it.

[BurtWorm]

84. I don't think anyone gets it.

Except those who are comfortable glossing over the awkwardnesses.

It's a wonder to me how the Trinitarians, with such an awkward and unwieldy foundation for their dogma, took control of the whole shebang. And then I remember that it wasn't because of the brilliance of their theology or philosophy, but because of how well they positioned themselves with respect to the seat of imperial power.

I remain in wonder over the fact that this ancient imperial politicking continues to exert a constricting influence over the *beliefs* of many individual Christians *today*, even of those who belong to churches that broke free of Rome's political influence 500 years ago.

[TechBear_Seattle]

90. Like I said, neo-Platonism is little taught nowadays

When you approach Christian doctrines like the Trinity, transubstantiation and the "indelible" nature of the sacraments with an understanding of late neo-Platonism, they become pretty elegant.

Trinitarianism became the orthodoxy for one reason: class. Pretty much just as you said.

One of the big reasons why Constantine called the Council of Nicea is because the followers of Arius and Athanasius had taken to open warfare over their different theologies, and the conflict was a serious threat to the unity of Constantine's empire. The Trinitarians consisted mainly of people educated in classical philosophy, which ment that they were largely from the small group of Christians from the monied classes. Arians consisted mainly of people who did not have the education to follow the refined (and somewhat tortured) philosophy that led to Trinitarianism. While Arians had the numbers, Trinitarians had access to the Emperor and thus were able to set the agenda of the Council of Nicaea. There are contemporary accounts of bribary to buy over votes to the Trinitarian point of view, and it is known that several Arian bishops were arrested or just plain expelled from the Council, leading to a victory for Trinitarianism.

As for Trinitarianism's hold on the Protestant movement, I direct you to Michael Servetus. In 1531, he published a book, De trinitatis erroribus ("On the Errors of the Trinity") where he described -- in great detail and with a degree of Biblical exigesis that would not be seen again until the late 1800s -- how the doctrine of the Trinity had absolutely no basis in Scripture and was a pagan dogma repugnant to Christian teaching. In that and a latter work, Christianismi Restitutio ("The Restoration of Christianity"), and in personal conversations and debates, Servetus was extremely confrontational. He drew so much attention from the Catholic Church that Protestants were afraid to challenge Church doctrine beyond what they needed for independence from the Church. And he pissed off so many Protestant leaders -- John Calvin, in particular, who had Servetus burned at the stake as a heretic on October 27, 1553 -- that these leaders stuck to Trinitarianism out of spite against him.

[BurtWorm]

93. It's amazing how much of dogma is pure politics.

Amazing only because it gets a pass in most theological discussions, as though it were the product of honest philosophizing rather than backroom deal-making.

[TechBear_Seattle]

95. Might I recommend "The Closing of the Western Mind"

"The Closing of the Western Mind: The Rise of Faith and the Fall of Reason" by Charles Freeman (Barns & Noble link) It outlines many of the political and theological decisions that ended the Classical world's lively culture of debate and creating the rigid orthodoxy that still defines so much of western culture.

[BurtWorm]

97. Hee hee.

That's what I'm reading right now. ;)

[kiahzero]

87. Then what was wrong with what I said about aspects?

The Athanasian Creed specifically rejects that God has three different formae; such a doctrine would have been Modalism. Instead, Trinitarians hold that God has three different personae, "persons." Persona originally described the mask worn by actors on a stage; the term was adopted by neo-Platonists to mean a particular way in which substantia expresses itself. It is not a forma; while a persona can take material form, it does not have to, nor does any particular physical manifestation of a mask have to resemble any other physical manifestation of the same mask.

The underlined part sounds like an aspect to me.

[TechBear_Seattle]

91. I was thinking of "aspect" in the sense of a _forma_

When I use "aspect" in a theological sense, it is in reference to a particular way that the divine manifests in the material world. Translating that useage into the neo-Platonism which is the heart of Christian theology, that would be a forma, not a persona. Trinitarianism holds that only the Son has a forma, and only as a result of the Incarnation. Since the Father and Holy Spirit were never incarnated, they do not have and never have had a forma and thus could not have an "aspect" in this sense. (Let us ignore, for the moment, the question of how a non forma being can beget a child on a mortal woman.)

Another use of "aspect" is in the sense of looking at the same object from different angles. Think of the fable of the blind men and the elephant, each experiencing and describing a different aspect of the creature. Orthodox Trinitarianists would be gravely offended if someone tried to describe the Holy Spirt as God's left ear :rofl: Again, that is applying forma to something that does not have forma, which has been condemned as heresy since Trinitarianism was first expounded.

If you are using "aspect" in a different sense, then I owe you an apology. Would you mind expounding on what you mean by "aspect"?

[kiahzero]

92. Why would they be offended by analogy?

If someone were to "describe the Holy Spirt as God's left ear," that wouldn't generally be taken literally that there is a carnate God sitting on a throne with a ghost whispering in his ear.

My precise meaning of "aspect" is difficult to articulate except by analogy, and I'm not sure that there's anything in your frame of reference that I could analogize to. Perhaps you could explain your distinction between forma and persona?

[TechBear_Seattle]

94. Honestly, I don't know how to explain the distinction

I am not a believer and I don't pretend to understand all the nuances completely. I'm just an amateur scholar of early Christian history and how dogma evolved to become orthodoxy.

From what I've learned from genuine theologians is that any effort to separate the personae of Father, Son and Holy Spirit is considered an attack on the unity of the Godhead and thus heresy. Any effort to unify the personae and describe them as "aspects" or "modes" or "manifestations" or "avatars" or "states" of the same being is an attack on the Triune nature of the Godhead and thus heresy. In the end, the one and only orthodox reaction is to say, "It is a mystery." Any further discussion on the matter will lead you to the stake (or would have, up until about 300 years ago.)

I am only pointing out that, according to orthodox Trinitarianism, one's only options are to accept it entirely and unquestioningly, or be a heretic. :shrug:

[kiahzero]

50. Yeah, pretty much. (n/t)

[Dorian Gray]

48. Not sure that this is actually wanted....

but I'll bite! :)

The forms of God have been likened to the different forms H2O takes. Ice, Water, and Vapor. Three different forms, but one make-up. So, the Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit are all made up of the same thing (God), but they take on different forms in different conditions

[BurtWorm]

53. So God is variable?

[Dorian Gray]

62. Variable?

Sure, in the sense that He has control over the form He takes. But, the true answer to all of this, from my mind, is that I truly have no idea. I've studied on a philosophical and theological level, but I have no idea how it all works in reality. All I can do is explain in terms that make sense of it to myself. I'm comfortable with my beliefs, and I only shared because YOU asked! ;)

[BurtWorm]

78. It seems to me that theology and philosophy are just games

unless they have some connection to reality.

[Dorian Gray]

83. Theology and Philosophy

We all have differing opinions on the necessity for Theology and philosohpy. I don't want to force you to see things as I do, nor to I want to impose my theological studies on you. Personally, I am fascinated with both, and I enjoy reading theologians and philosophers. I don't always agree with their conclusions, but I think that they've provided fascinating theories on the basic nature of humanity. Not everyone's cup of tea!

And, I only responded because you asked. :shrug:

[Finder]

96. Add in psychology and the world is your footstool.lol...

I too find myself fascinated by the various works and all three are complementary to each other for a thorough understanding of how and why people think the way they do.

The only drawback is that it takes close to a decade to absorb it all enough to make sense of it. Not too many people have the time, interest or attention span. There was a time when it was a noble endeavor...unfortunately, it is seen as frivolous today unless you are clergy or a rich recluse.lol

[Dorian Gray]

99. I'd love to be rich and reclusive

so that I could dedicate all my time to that endeavor, but, alas, it isn't to be!

:)

[Pyrzqxgl]

54. for us record collectors its

78, 33, and 45 and if you have a transcription turntable sometimes 16.

[sweetheart]

55. my sigline nt

[Random_Australian]

69. 1) God does not obey the axioms.

(At least the best ones don't, some of the fundy ones do, and they absolutely SUCK without exception)

2) The non-contradiction axiom prevents three things being equal to one thing.
(That axiom is " There is no thing that is both A and not A")

3) Not obeying that axiom means that bieng a trinity is no more important or difficult than holding an apple.

There you go, sovled.

[muriel_volestrangler]

71. Possibly the way that Greek philosophy and religion was integrated into Christianity

Immediately following the New Testament, between end of first and middle of second century, a number of writings "the Apostolic Fathers" appear. These Apologists, educated pagan converts, present Christianity to the Greco-Roman culture of their day in such a way as to defend Christianity against the charge of atheism. Justin Martyr (167 AD) found the link in the Logos notion of pagan philosophy of Stoicism and Platonism - the two most influential schools in the early centuries of the Christian era. This Triad of the philosophers consisting of God, Logos, Psyche was similar to the Christian Triad and this ability to rationalise Christianity with Stoicism and Platonism gave Christian faith universal significance and substantiated its claim upon both Jew and Gentiles. The basic problem confronting the Apologists was now how to reconcile the triadic statement of God with the equally emphatic assertion of the faith that God is one.

During the third century, a new generation of theologians succeeds the Apologists. These writers inherit the general theological position of the Apologists and attempt to develop it further. The main contributors in this area are Irenaeus (115-202), Tertullian (200), Hippolytus (170-236), Clement (160-215) and Origen. At the same time two main heresies concerning God become prominent: one is Modalism or Monarchianism that endangered the Logos theology in the unity of God. Modalism asserted that there is only one God with three distinct references of the Triad as Father, Son and the Holy Spirit; these are simply different names for the one God in different forms or modes (hence Modalism). The other is the Christian Gnosticism which attempts to give Subordinationism a religious philosophy by stating that the saving gnosis is Christ, a Spiritual being from the Heavenly World who is distinguished from the man Jesus upon whom he descended either at birth or baptism and from whom he departed before his passion and death.
...
Irenaeu's special contribution is seen in his retrieval and reintroduction of the Pauline concept of the Spirit as life giving. Irenaeus depicts God's Word and Spirit as becoming his "hands" for the work of the economy. However, he scarcely broaches the question of the eternal relationships among Father, Son, and Spirit or conceives of them as 'divine' "persons". Both Hippolytus and Tertullian, while concerned with the threat of Gnosticism, now also find themselves confronted by Modalism. Hippolytus who writes in Greek from Rome and Tertullian in North Africa in Latin rebut Modalism by means of a refined Economic Trinitarianism. The language difference adds further confusion to the theological discussion of the meaning of God in Christian faith and strongly emphasises the real distinction of the Father, Son and Spirit. Both still placed the Son's generation prior to his work of creation but sharpened the distinct individuality of the Logos immanent eternally in the Godhead. Tertullian was the first to use the word trinitas. The Godhead was a single substantia, shared by the Son and the Spirit. The three personae were three not in their basic quality or power but in 'grade' or 'sequence', 'aspect' and 'manifestation'.

Developments of another sort were taking place simultaneously in the Eastern Church, around the city of Alexandria. Clement of Alexandria as head of the catechetical school taught that God is transcendent, ineffable and incomprehensible. He is a unity beyond all unity and a monad embracing all unity. This is a God who can only be known through his Word or Son. The Son is the image of the Father, his mind or rationality. He is the mediator between the utterly transcendent God, the One, and the world which he contains. Clement speaks of the Spirit as the light from the Word who enlightens the faith. The Spirit is also the power of the Word which pervades creation and attracts individuals to God. Clement therefore presents an image of the Trinity, likening the triad Father, Son, and Holy Spirit with a strong resemblance to the triad of Neoplatonism: the One, Mind and World Soul.

http://dlibrary.acu.edu.au/research/theology/Gus_nathan.htm

Neoplatonism was developing at about the same time as early Christianity, so it's not immediately obvious if the idea of a triad came from one to the other, or if both were developing on earlier ideasof a triad. There are a couple of places in the New Testament where "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" is used, but there are doubts if these are original passages, or ones added later. There's also the complicating factor of 'Sophia', the usually feminine embodiment of Wisdom (even in the Old Testament, which sometimes seems like another form of the Holy Spirit, and sometimes nearer Jesus as "the Word" - 'Logos'. But Sophia was also a major part of Gnosticism, and the reaction against Gnosticism may have built up the eventual picture of the Trinity that mainstream Christianity finally adopted in the 4th century - definitely not Gnostic, but with enough complication that the philosophical ideas from the Greek tradition can be fitted into it.

[rug]

98. Explain matter without origin.

[BurtWorm]

104. Why does there have to have been an origin for matter? Is it possible there has always been matter?

Are you suggesting the Trinity explains it?

[rug]

105. Matter without origin is as illogical as the Trinity.

Nothing in nature has been explained without concepts of beginning, transformation and end.

Neither logic nor ridicule are the best tools for theology.

[BurtWorm]

107. It is not illogical, nor even inconceivable.

The convention is to think everything has a beginning, middle and end. But convention may be wrong. It may just be a bias of life forms, which have all of those things, to think all things must have those qualities.

[rug]

117. That hypothesis is as unprovable as the Trinity.

While the concept of infinite and eternal matter may be stated, it cannot be grasped.

[BurtWorm]

120. Of course it can be grasped!

You just grasped it and stated it very succinctly. Try grasping and stating the Trinity so well.

[rug]

125. Ok, now explain it, matter without origin, that is.

I'll work on the Trinity. Let's see who finishes first.

[BurtWorm]

129. What's to explain. Matter can neither be created nor destroyed.

It's a well-known physical law. Explain why it needs to have originated.

[rug]

130. New matter cannot be created.

How did it come into existence? Explain how it has existed eternally.

[BurtWorm]

131. You just said it as well as I could.

Explain how "old" matter can be created if "new" matter can't be.

[rug]

132. The Trinity.

[BurtWorm]

134. The God of the Gaps.

However, there's no gap here, until you show me why matter *must* have been "created." The Second Law of Thermodynamics suggests it not only doesn't have to have been but *couldn't* have been.

[rug]

138. But there is a gap. And entropy doesn't fill it, closed system or not.

All that can be established is that matter is. You can no more establish that matter is eternal than I can that it is created.

Hence, theology.

As to the trinity, any definition is imprecise; any explanation impossible.

I suggest an honest appraisal of matter ultimately yields the same results.

[BurtWorm]

140. You've just admitted theology is greek or latin for

I don't know

[rug]

141. It's Greek.

And it attempts to understand things beyond matter. It also posits that there are things beyond matter.

Now, if you think matter is the entirety of existence, it would be wise to consider nonexistence as well, the difference between Being and Nothingness. Sartre came close to your conclusions in that book.

In any event, I would still like to hear a coherent explanation, from any quarter, for eternal matter.

[BurtWorm]

142. I keep telling you, you've made the coherent case yourself.

For some reason, you're not hearing yourself.

[BurtWorm]

133. Delete

.

[Random_Australian]

127. What's to explain?

It's not that odd. Virtual particles don't obey the laws of nature, and vacuum energy just brings itself into existence.

What's so odd about the normal laws not bieng freaking everything? I mean really, they were obtained from math applied to macroscopic observations!

[rug]

128. Even if vacuum energy exists in the absence of matter, whence come it?

[Random_Australian]

143. I didn't say it exists in the absence of matter (though it does)

The important thing about it is that it appears without 'cause' and does not 'come from' anywhere.

As in, not everything needs some cause to start existing.

In fact, as I've never seen matter created, I have to accept that whether or not it requires cause is something I don't know, because we've no evidence either way and no reason to choose either option as the null hypothesis.

In other words, thinking that says all things need cause is thinking not supported by the evidence.

[rug]

144. The alternative is eternity.

If it does not already exist eternally but simply appears, with or without cause, there remains the question, from where?

If the answer is, from nothing, you are, at a minimum, in the realm of philosophy.

Esse ex nihilo itself requires some evidence that is still lacking.

[Random_Australian]

145. No it isn't.

"If it does not already exist eternally but simply appears, with or without cause, there remains the question, from where?"

For things like the big bang, that question does not remain. Time and space started with the big bang, remember?

"If the answer is, from nothing, you are, at a minimum, in the realm of philosophy."

Why? I am not philosophical about it at all.

"Esse ex nihilo itself requires some evidence that is still lacking."

I agree with this bit. I would contend that neither should be the null hypothesis, and that neither have enough evidence to get past hypothesis.

However, my point remains - things don't have to be caused. Matter does not require some act of creation to be around for a finite time.

[rug]

147. Not to beat a dead quasar, but if matter will cease to exist in a finite time,

its starting point would seem to require - a start. And if the matter or energy do cease to exist at some point, to where?

In short, I don't think it's tenable to postulate a universe that's semi-infinite.

[Zhade]

103. Easy - Christianity isn't really monotheistic.

But then, judging from the way it borrowed so many concepts from a variety of sources, like Mithra, it's not terribly original either.

But the point of the sword was very convincing in its spread, as another poster alluded to above.

[Danger Mouse]

113. Dude...

'The holy trinity' is a Catholic belief.
Not all Christians believe in it. Just thought I'd clarify.
As for me, I have no idea what the fuck 'the holy trinity' is supposed to be.

[Finder]

116. Not just catholic, most protestant sects believe it also...

JWs, Mormons, SDAs have particular beliefs about the godhead but most do not consider them Christian per se...

[Danger Mouse]

118. True.

The 'holy trinity' however, is typically associated with Catholics. Not exclusive, but mostly.

[TechBear_Seattle]

119. Not really

When I a communicant of the Episcopal Church, we spoke often of the Holy Trinity. There are many Episcopal, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Calvinist and Methodist churches dedicated to the Trinity. It is also a central doctrine of the Orthodox churches (Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, etc.) While many of these groups do not use the exact phrase "holy Trinity" or address prayers to the entire Trinity as they do in the Catholic and Orthodox churches, the doctrine is still very firmly there.

[kiahzero]

121. Episcopal = Catholic Lite (n/t)

[TechBear_Seattle]

122. Them's fightin' words!

To pretty much every Anglican I've ever met. :hi:

[kiahzero]

123. I was raised Episcopalian

It was a bit ironic when my aunt got married to a Catholic man... his family was really upset that they weren't having a Catholic wedding. I wanted to shout at them, "It's the same religion!"

:D

[Nikia]

136. I thought that Orthdox Christians rejected the Trinity

I thought that was part of the reason for the split. I'll have to check on that though.

[muriel_volestrangler]

139. There was a difference on the origin of the Holy Spirit

No clear record exists of the process by which the word Filioque was inserted into the Creed of 381 in the Christian West before the sixth century. The idea that the Spirit came forth “from the Father through the Son” is asserted by a number of earlier Latin theologians, as part of their insistence on the ordered unity of all three persons within the single divine Mystery (e.g., Tertullian, Adversus Praxean 4 and 5). ...
...
The Filioque figured prominently in the tumultuous events of 1054, when excommunications were exchanged by representatives of the Eastern and Western Churches meeting in Constantinople. Within the context of his anathemas against Patriarch Michael I Cerularios of Constantinople and certain of his advisors, Cardinal Humbert of Silva Candida, the legate of Pope Leo IX, accused the Byzantines of improperly deleting the Filioque from the Creed, and criticized other Eastern liturgical practices. In responding to these accusations, Patriarch Michael recognized that the anathemas of Humbert did not originate with Leo IX, and cast his own anathemas simply upon the papal delegation. Leo, in fact, was already dead and his successor had not been elected. At the same time, Michael condemned the Western use of the Filioque in the Creed, as well as other Western liturgical practices. This exchange of limited excommunications did not lead, by itself, to a formal schism between Rome and Constan-tinople, despite the views of later historians; it did, however, deepen the growing estrangement between Constantinople and Rome.

http://www.scoba.us/resources/filioque-p02.asp

A pretty obscure difference to most people, I think.

[immoderate]

109. Spaghetti + meatballs + sauce = one dish.

--IMM

[BurtWorm]

111. Are you comparing the Lord Jesus Christ to meatballs?!

:crazy:

[immoderate]

112. Some prefer sausage!

It's a tough call.O8)

--IMM

[Danger Mouse]

114. What...

no garlic bread?

[immoderate]

115. 'Scuse me, but that's on the side.

--IMM

[Ready4Change]

124. Well see, a long time ago...

A great sorcerer convinced the elves to allow him to study how they made rings of power. Using what he learned, he crafted a great ring of power. One which not only granted its wearer great power, but brought the wearers of the other rings under his sway.

A great battle was fought, when the free peoples learned of his treachery. He was defeated and banished. His ring, however, was lost.

Ages passed, and the ring resurfaced. The Trilogy is the story of...

oh.... TriNITy, not Trilogy.

Never mind.

[charles22]

135. Why?

[Nikia]

137. I never really embraced that doctorine

When I read the Bible at various ages and stages of Christian belief, I just didn't see how they came up with the doctorine based on scripture.
To me, Jesus was distinctly separate. It seemed absurd that he'd be praying to himself, for example.
The Holy Spirit seemed to be more of spirtual connection of God and believers but not really a being.

[Bodineian]

146. Trinity Is Doctrine of Man

The trinity concept was developed and voted on during one of the Councils of Nicea.

Monotheism was being questioned by followers, with the father/son/ghost Pauline Doctrine being a conflict with monotheism.

So they voted on it and made up explanations as how 3 can really be 1 to keep the masses bullshitted.

Other doctrines were voted on as well by men.

So when any questions are asked about men dictating doctrine, the masses are again bullshitted by this divinely inspired lie.

Monotheism means ONE not three.