PDA

View Full Version : The Trinity in Creation



DaveS
Nov 10th 2008, 05:59 AM
My words, but the ideas are taken from The Secret of the Universe by Nathan R. Wood, http://www.sacred-texts.com/nth/sotu/sotu00.htm
(I would be interested to get anyone's take on the book who has read it.)

We struggle to "explain" the Trinity. We use analogies like Man consisting of Body, Soul and Spirt; Water subsisting as Solid, Liquid and Gas; or an egg consisting of Shell, White and Yolk. But all of these fall short in that the Trinity is not just three parts of a whole, but rather, three parts, each of which CONTAINS the whole, IS the whole, therefore the existence of Each is NECESSARY to the existence of the other Two. This is not true for Body, Soul, Spirit; Solid, Liquid, Gas; Shell, White, Yolk, or any of the usual analogies we use.

But there are TRUE reflections of the Trinity all around us. The creation itself, at its most fundamental level, is a reflection of the triunity of its Creator.

For example...

The universe as we know it is generally agreed to consist of three basic things; Space, Matter and Time. Not only are these three a great triunity, but each of these parts is a triunity unto itself, not just a collection of three, but an actual reflection of the triunity of God.

I'll try to lay out the first one, Space, as best I can. For the rest, and a lot more, read Mr. Wood's book. I couldn't put it down. Again, the following are my words, not his.

Space: consists of three dimensions, Length, Breadth and Height. These three together make up the whole of that which we call space. Yet each of these, at the same time, IS the whole. For example...

Imagine a box of any length, breadth and height. Now put a line within that box running the length of the box. Now fill that box with these "length lines". It isn't hard to see how that Length fills the entire volume of the box. Now do the same with lines running the breadth of the box. Now the height. You soon realize that EACH of the three separate and distint dimensions CONTAINS the whole. No point within the box is excluded from the length, from the breadth, from the height. The whole volume of the box is encompassed by each dimension. Yet they are truly three. Length is not Height. Breadth is not Length. They are separate and distinct from each other, yet they are truly one, in that each is not only a PART of the whole, but each, in fact, IS the whole.

To further illustrate...

Take your box now and squeeze the Length completely out of it. Not down to a "flat" imaginary plane, but COMPLETELY, down to zero. What happens to the box? It disappears. If the Length is removed, the entire box ceases to exist. Do the same with the Breadth, then the Height. You soon find that each of these three dimensions, separate and distinct though they are, are
NECESSARY to the existence of the other two, and thus to the whole. If any one of the three ceases to exist the whole ceases to exist. Therefore, space is a TRUE triunity, a triunity as we might expect to find as the starting point for a creation called into being by the Creator as revealed in the New Testament scriptures, a triune Creator.

Identical relationships also exist in the Energy, Motion and Phenomena that make up Matter, and in the Future, Present and Past that make up Time. The same also holds true for many other essential elements of the creation including Man, and within Man the faculties of Personhood, Reason, Morality and more. The creation is filled with the reflections of its Divine Creator in His essential Being as the triune God.

Athanasius
Nov 10th 2008, 06:30 AM
Pretty sure this still falls under Modalism... But I've been up all night and won't say anything else until I've had sleep so as to clearly think.

th1bill
Nov 10th 2008, 02:28 PM
Like DaveS I'm going to seek the council of many on this matter but I do not see Modalism. I believe that I see reflections of the one true God composed of three seperate persons that are, none the less, One God.

In sitting here and running it through my mind I can see the box analogy perfectly. And since it is a violation of everything that is true for the box to just disappear I believe that this illustrates the truth that the Triune quality of God always has and always will exist. I'll be very interested to see other's replies also.

markedward
Nov 10th 2008, 08:25 PM
I'm not seeing any "modalism" here either... I see "evidences" in creation pointed out that reflect the trinity... but I don't see anything in the OP that says (whether implicitly or explicitly) "God exists in one of three modes".

DaveS
Nov 11th 2008, 01:23 AM
Thanks for the comments, All. It seems to me that Mr. Wood's point is that the creation reflects a true Triune Creator. Not one God acting in 3 different modes as expediency dictates, but one God who exists simultaniously, eternally and essentially as three persons. The dim "mirror" that space itself seems to be is not a modalistic entity. It is three, yet it is one. Always three, and always one.

In fact the three dimensions of space, as answering to the triune nature of God, shows us more than just the illustration I posted. In it there is an answer (possibly, THE answer) to a problem posed to us time and time again by those who refuse the Trinity for "logic's" sake.

How often have you heard this,

"Look, 1 + 1 + 1 = 3. /// 1 + 1 + 1 DOES NOT EQUAL 1!!!! End of discussion!"

But the fact of the matter is that this "healthy sceptic" has his math wrong. If you're going to be so foolish as to try to apply some basic mathmatical equation to an infinite Being, you must at least get the equation right.

A multi-dimensional Being is not expressed by 1 + 1 + 1. Go back and measure the volume, the "fullness", of the three dimensional box we brought out earlier. Do you do it by adding the Length to the Breadth to the Height? Of course not. The equation is not 1 + 1 + 1. The equation (if there were such a thing) is 1 X 1 X 1.

It's almost as though God, anticipating the argument, gave us in the most basic element of His creation, an answer to those who would refuse to see. Is it THE answer? I don't presume to know. But I think it's a darn good FACT to open a mind imprisoned by false "logic" when it comes to the triune nature of God.

GitRDunn
Nov 11th 2008, 05:20 AM
First off I think this idea about the box does help to illustrate the trinity well, but before I say more (and sorry for getting off topic a little bit) what do you guys mean when you say "Modalism"? I think I kind of get it, but I want to make sure. Thanks!

DaveS
Nov 11th 2008, 06:57 AM
Hi Git. See my response below this post. Anyone, please correct me if I'm wrong about Modalism.
__________________________________________________ ___

Ok, let me take a stab at the next one; Matter.

All the universe consists of Space, Matter and Time. I've touched on Space as a reflection of the Triunity that is God. The relationship that exists in the triunity of Matter is no less astounding.

Matter, it is now universally agreed, consists of Energy, Motion and Phenomena. Rather than assume that everyone understands this (I certainly don't pretend to) let me give a brief and wholly inadequate explanation.

All Matter, as we know and experience it, consists of Energy Moving at a particular rate of speed. This is the essense of Einstein's famous equation, E=Mc^2. The desk you're sitting at is, in reality, Energy in Motion. Therefore things do not merely "exist", they "happen". Your desk, micro-moment by micro-moment, is in a continual state and process of "becoming" a desk. Therefore, your desk (and all Matter) is not just a thing, it's a Phenomenon. It's a "happening".

And different types of Matter are only Energy Moving at different rates of speed. Everything we see, feel, smell, touch, taste, is the result of Energy in various rates of Motion. Variety in Color, light, hardness, softness, heaviness, lightness, etc. is all the result of Energy at velocity X versus Energy at velocity Y. (If I've misstated anything here, someone with a brain please correct me.)

Given the above, Energy is the source of Matter. All that we know in the physical universe flows ultimately from Energy. But raw Energy itself does not give forth Matter. There is a conduit. And that conduit is Motion. It is only as Energy attains a particular velocity that Matter (or Phenomena) exists. And it is only in our contact with this Phenomena that we experience the universe as we know it.

The same is true also, of the Godhead. The Father is the Source, the essence from which all things flow. But the Father is invisible. "No man hath seen God at any time". It is only through a Mediator that we come to know the Father. That Mediator, that Conduit, is the Son. It is only as Energy exists in Motion that we experience its presence and Creative Power. The Creative power of Energy manifests itself only through Motion. The power is there in Energy, but it is only Energy by way of Motion which ultimately Creates. Even as the Father created all things by the Son. "For by him (Jesus) were all things created".

But Energy in Motion is not the end. There is that which eminates from the source, through the conduit. That is Phenomena itself; Matter; the point at which we actually touch the Motion and the Energy from which it proceeds. Matter bears witness, is the experiential manifestation of, the Motion which proceeds from Energy. Obviously, Phenomena is here a representation of the Holy Spirt. It is through the Holy Spirit, bearing witness of the Son, that we ultimately "touch" God. And Phenomena proceeds from Energy through Motion as the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, through the Son.

But is the relationship of Energy, Motion, Phenomena a TRUE triunity so as to be an adequate (though dim) reflection of the Creator?

We've said before that in order to be a TRUE triunity, a thing must be not only composed of three, but composed in such a way that each of the parts must encompass the whole. Further, because each encompasses the whole, it must be true that no two can exist without the third and that no one can exist without the other two. In other words, there must be ABSOLUTE threeness, simultaniously with ABSOLUTE oneness. So does Matter, the stuff of the universe, Energy, Motion, Phenomena, meet that criteria?

Consider...

It is the very nature of Energy to move. Energy is not Motion, it is that which enables Motion; that which makes Motion possible. Yet non-motion is against the very nature, the very make-up of Energy. Energy by its nature must produce Motion. From the moment that Energy exists, Motion must exist. Motion is therefore the full and true contemporary of Energy. Energy is the source of Motion, but Energy does not precede Motion. Though one proceeds from the other, they can only exist together, simultaniously, and contemporaneously.

Motion in turn, eminates from Energy. It cannot exist without it, yet is exists in the beginning of it. Motion is "begotten" of Energy, at the same time, Energy can only exist in Motion.

And the existence of Energy, in Motion, demands the existance of Phenomena. Phenomena cannot exist without Energy in Motion, while Energy cannot exist without Motion, and Energy and Motion cannot exist without Phenomena.

To further illustrate...

Phenomena is the visible form of Energy in Motion. Phenomena is Matter, all of it, in its entirety. Phenomena encompasses the whole of Matter.

Equally, the very term Phenomena is used to show that all Matter not only exists, it happens. It happens, and continues to happen, because it exists in a state of perpetual Motion. There is not an element of Matter that does not consist and subsist in Motion. (In him all things consist). Therefore Motion also encompasses the whole of Matter.

The same holds true for Energy. Matter is in reality NOTHING MORE than Energy in Motion. Therefore Matter consists ENTIRELY of Energy. Energy, like Motion and Phenomena, encompasses the whole of Matter.

So we see again that not only Space, but the stuff of Space, Matter itself, is a TRUE reflection of the Triunity of the One who spoke it into existence.

DaveS
Nov 11th 2008, 07:00 AM
First off I think this idea about the box does help to illustrate the trinity well, but before I say more (and sorry for getting off topic a little bit) what do you guys mean when you say "Modalism"? I think I kind of get it, but I want to make sure. Thanks!My understanding of Modalism is the idea that God is one Being who manifests Himself in three different ways at different times. As opposed to the Biblical representation of God being One, but consisting of three separate, distinct Persons simultaneously and eternally.

GitRDunn
Nov 11th 2008, 12:41 PM
My understanding of Modalism is the idea that God is one Being who manifests Himself in three different ways at different times. As opposed to the Biblical representation of God being One, but consisting of three separate, distinct Persons simultaneously and eternally.
Well if that is the case, then I don't think the box example represents modalism because they all three (length, width, height) exist simultaneously, they don't take turns existing.

Gospelkid
Nov 11th 2008, 01:15 PM
John 1:1-3 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made

God is not three in one, he is one person, Jesus is the son the promise of God to deliever mankind, you can also locate the promise to Adam, the same one that was Given to Abraham, Issac,Jacob ans us.

Genesis 3:14 God defeated the enemy by placing a curse on him, he over come him by His word, and fullfill his promise when he came in the flesh, Genesis :15 was the rpomise of his coming top redeem mankind, the promise to pay for our sins and he did.

He promised Abraham a son, but the actual message wa that He God was coming to us in the form of a man, Jesus Christ. Now we know that Jesus was of the Holy Ghost, who is the Holy Ghost? God himself.

Genesis 6:3 God also shows us that every man lives by the Spirirt of God and that it is the departing of The Spirit that causes death. The same Spirit that wa in man in the Old testament is now with us today, we are simply renewed through the death and resurecction of Jesus Christ.

This is the true meaning and reason why Jesus is the only way, he has restored us to life and gave us the promise of the Spirit by which all Christians and believers in Jesus Christ are sealed unto salvation.

BlessedMan
Nov 11th 2008, 04:34 PM
At one time the Jews were proud to say that they only served one God. They had a real formidable God that worked miracles for them while other people served idols made of stone. As Christians we have a bit of the problem that the idol worshipers had as we have no God we can conjure up for the skeptic. Now if we further complicate our position by casting doubt on our monotheistic credentials the skeptic Homoscientifico will accuse us of hypocrisy. But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, reasonable, full of good fruits, and without hypocricy. James 3:16. So why don't we return to the roots of our faith and say we serve God, and realize that he is far too complex for us to understand and be content that his mind is around us even if we can't get our minds around him.

JesusIsLord82
Nov 11th 2008, 05:04 PM
my understanding of the Trinity is this. I look to the teaching of the Catholic Church's St. Patrick to the Irish using the Shamrock plant. the shamrock has three leaves but yet are a part of the same plant because they are connected to each other by one stem. Same goes for the Trinity, One Divine God, Three Divine Natures, Father, Son, Holy Spirit.

DaveS
Nov 12th 2008, 12:26 AM
Well if that is the case, then I don't think the box example represents modalism because they all three (length, width, height) exist simultaneously, they don't take turns existing.

I agree. Well put.

DaveS
Nov 12th 2008, 12:35 AM
Thanks Gospelkid and BlessedMan, but I'm really not looking for a debate on whether the Trinity exists or whether or not we should talk about it. This thread obviously assumes both. I do appreciate your input though. Maybe in another context we can follow up on those points because I really would like to get a further perspective on what you're saying. I just don't want to get too far off the current topic. I hope you understand.

DaveS
Nov 12th 2008, 01:00 AM
my understanding of the Trinity is this. I look to the teaching of the Catholic Church's St. Patrick to the Irish using the Shamrock plant. the shamrock has three leaves but yet are a part of the same plant because they are connected to each other by one stem. Same goes for the Trinity, One Divine God, Three Divine Natures, Father, Son, Holy Spirit.Thanks, JesusIsLord. I've heard that comparison too. And it has it's value as far as it goes. But like the others I mentioned in the op, it really doesn't fit the critera of a true triunity. Each leaf is not the whole plant, therefore each leaf is not necessary to the existence of the whole. If one leaf is removed you've only taken away a PART of the plant, leaving behind essentially what you started with, a clover. A mutilated clover to be sure, but a clover none the less.

Not that the examples I've given in this thread are flawless, they aren't. One essential of the Trinity that hasn't even been touch on yet is the fact that God - Father, Son and Holy Spirit - exist as three separate and distint "seats of consciousness" (as the ancients put it). Nothing I've brought up here yet even pretends to reflect any such thing. (Not that there isn't such a thing reflected in creation. We just haven't mentioned it yet.)

JollyRoger1970
Dec 6th 2010, 04:15 AM
My understanding of Modalism is the idea that God is one Being who manifests Himself in three different ways at different times. As opposed to the Biblical representation of God being One, but consisting of three separate, distinct Persons simultaneously and eternally.

That is my understanding of modalism as well.......

-SEEKING-
Dec 6th 2010, 04:22 AM
Not sure if you noticed but prior to your post, no one had posted in this thread in over 2 years.

AB2011
Jan 6th 2011, 01:29 PM
To try and explain God in a box or a leaf would be a difficult thing to do.

Jesus said in Matthew that we should baptize in the NAME of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Now "NAME" is a singular term, so from my understanding the titles or offices of Father, Son and Holy Ghost is the same. I say "title" because "father" is not a name, I might call my father "father" because that is his office or title but his name might be John, I am his son, and he might call me that, but my name might be "Jack", and I know a movie of a "Friendly Ghost", but his name was "Casper". So we have three names here JOHN JACK and CASPER. That is three persons. Jesus says NAME, singular. So God has ONE name. One God, three offices one name. Peter says in Acts 2 we should get baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ. Well his not wrong. Jesus is Lord (Father), Jesus is the (Son), and also the Christ (Holy Ghost). The Holy Ghost shone on Saul and said to Saul "I am Jesus" on Saul's way to Damascus.

Firefighter
Jan 6th 2011, 01:45 PM
Not sure if you noticed but prior to your post, no one had posted in this thread in over 2 years.

It's a ZOMBIE THREAD...

Mathetes
Jan 6th 2011, 01:53 PM
Just to add my two cents here (which somebody may have already touched on)...

I think trying to come up with something in creation to represent the Trinity is a big mistake. God cannot be represented by anything that is made (which is why worshiping images of created things is so heinous). There are certainly trinitarian aspects of creation (such as the three states of matter--liquid, solid and gas), but these don't represent the Godhead.

Regarding the box analogy, I'm not sure if it works 100%. The hallmark of the doctrine of the Trinity is that God is three Persons in one essence. Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all equally God. In the box, what essence do all three dimensions share equally? Even if each distinct dimension contains the whole, as pointed out, does each dimension have the essence of "box" or something else? Does length, for example, have the essence of box?

One final thought: The box analogy, though clever, is not adequate because it conflicts with the simplicity of God. By "simplicity," I mean that God is not made up of composite parts, as created things are. God is indivisible. The volume of the box, though, is divisible, being made up of composite parts.

RSiscoe
Feb 1st 2011, 12:14 AM
DaveS makes some interesting points, which I applied to how I see man being made in God's image. First I'll explain how I understand man made in the image of God, and then I’ll apply it to what DaveS wrote.

Tertulian (circa AD 220), and St. Augustine (circa AD 430) described this Trinity like this: They begin with God the Father who has a thought. This thought is so infinite, perfect, and complete in and of itself that it is a distinct Person within the One Being of God. This Thought proceeds from the Father just as a spoke word (a thought brought to completion) proceeds from us. This "Thought", which constitutes a distinct Person within the One Godhead, is the Word of God, the Second Person of the Trinity. When the Person of the Father contemplates this infinitely perfect Thought; and when the Thought contemplates the infinite majesty and perfection of the Father, the mutual love “spirates” the Third Person of the Trinity, the Holy Ghost, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. So, we have the Father, the Thought (or Word), and the Holy Ghost.

Now, within our soul we see a similar reality. We are one being; yet within our one being we have an intellect and a will. The object of the intellect (what it is made for) is truth; the object of the will is the good. The intellect is moved by truth, the will is moved by love, or ‘desire”. The intellect is not the will, and the will is not the intellect; neither do the intellect or will, strictly speaking, make up our being. Our being, our intellect, and our will are distinct, yet they are one. Our being is analogous to God the Father; our intellect, which is made for truth, is analogous to the Word of God (the Truth of God); and our will, which is moved by love, is analogous to the Holy Ghost, who is Love of the Father and the Son.

And if we examine what takes place within our soul from time to time, we can actually see a similar operation as exists within God, albeit to an infinitely lesser degree. Has it ever happened that you were considering something over a period of time, and trying to come to an understanding of it? And has the understanding ever come to you at once, thereby resulting in an intellectual love for the truth discovered? When our grasp of a particular truth produces an intellectual love, it gives us a slight glimpse, as it were, of the operation within God, whereby the Father's love for the infinite Truth (the Word) spirates the infinite Love that is the Holy Ghost.

Now let's read what DaveS wrote and apply it to the analogy.


We struggle to "explain" the Trinity. We use analogies like Man consisting of Body, Soul and Spirt; Water subsisting as Solid, Liquid and Gas; or an egg consisting of Shell, White and Yolk. But all of these fall short in that the Trinity is not just three parts of a whole, but rather, three parts, each of which CONTAINS the whole, IS the whole, therefore the existence of Each is NECESSARY to the existence of the other Two. This is not true for Body, Soul, Spirit; Solid, Liquid, Gas; Shell, White, Yolk, or any of the usual analogies we use.

Now, since man is a rational being by nature, it is necessary that he possess a rational intellect (at least in potency). If he lacked this, he would not be a rational being, and therefore would not be human. Therefore our rational intellect is a necessary part of our being. Secondly, free will, which is defined as the ability to make a moral choice, is only possessed by rational or intellectual creatures (man or angels). The lower animals do not have a rational soul, and therefore are not subject to God’s law. Since rational and intellectual creatures are capable of knowing God’s law, they have a corresponding duty to know and obey that law. And since free will flows naturally and necessarily from the rational intellect, it is therefore necessary in order for man to be a complete man. For if he lacked a free will, it would follow that he lacked a rational intellect by which he can make a moral choice; and if he lacks a rational intellect, he is not a rational being, and is therefore not a man. Therefore, for the being man (which is analogous to God the Father) to be complete, he must possess a rational intellect (which is analogous to the Word of God); and if he possesses a rational intellect, he must also possess a free will (which is analogous to the Holy Ghost).

Now, as with all analogies of God it will fall short in some ways, since God is an infinite and uncreated being, to which no created being can truly compare; nevertheless, I think this demonstrates the image of the Trinity within the being of man.
Any thoughts?

PneumaPsucheSoma
Feb 5th 2011, 08:52 PM
DaveS makes some interesting points, which I applied to how I see man being made in God's image. First I'll explain how I understand man made in the image of God, and then I’ll apply it to what DaveS wrote.

Tertulian (circa AD 220), and St. Augustine (circa AD 430) described this Trinity like this: They begin with God the Father who has a thought. This thought is so infinite, perfect, and complete in and of itself that it is a distinct Person within the One Being of God. This Thought proceeds from the Father just as a spoke word (a thought brought to completion) proceeds from us. This "Thought", which constitutes a distinct Person within the One Godhead, is the Word of God, the Second Person of the Trinity. When the Person of the Father contemplates this infinitely perfect Thought; and when the Thought contemplates the infinite majesty and perfection of the Father, the mutual love “spirates” the Third Person of the Trinity, the Holy Ghost, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. So, we have the Father, the Thought (or Word), and the Holy Ghost.

And they were SOOOO close to the truth. But A word (person) was too dull a pseudo-"sword" to divide asunder, and we end up with God speaking the substance of Himself externally as a distinct second trinity person, then a third. The word is the quick, powerful, sharp true sword, piercing to the dividing asunder of soul-spirit and joints-marrow. God is Spirit-Soul-Body (Pneuma-Psuche-Soma) of One (Heis) Divinity (Theotes). God is not "persons" of any quantity. He spoke of Himself, His own Self; the One True God. He did not speak the Rhema substance-content of His Logos Reason-Intellect as another distinct "person" which brought forth yet a third. The only plurality in the Theotes relates to the reconciled spirit-soul-body elements of humanity in His Incarnation.


Now, within our soul we see a similar reality. We are one being; yet within our one being we have an intellect and a will. The object of the intellect (what it is made for) is truth; the object of the will is the good. The intellect is moved by truth, the will is moved by love, or ‘desire”. The intellect is not the will, and the will is not the intellect; neither do the intellect or will, strictly speaking, make up our being. Our being, our intellect, and our will are distinct, yet they are one. Our being is analogous to God the Father; our intellect, which is made for truth, is analogous to the Word of God (the Truth of God); and our will, which is moved by love, is analogous to the Holy Ghost, who is Love of the Father and the Son.

The demonstration of greatest love is the key... God laid down His life (psuche G5590 - soul life) for us. The Father (Soul) laid down His life for us. He thought and willed (Soul) to speak by His breath (Spirit) the Word (Son) to become flesh and be laid down for us. No celestial tag-team or relay-race of multiple God-persons; rather, giving His own life for/to us.


And if we examine what takes place within our soul from time to time, we can actually see a similar operation as exists within God, albeit to an infinitely lesser degree. Has it ever happened that you were considering something over a period of time, and trying to come to an understanding of it? And has the understanding ever come to you at once, thereby resulting in an intellectual love for the truth discovered? When our grasp of a particular truth produces an intellectual love, it gives us a slight glimpse, as it were, of the operation within God, whereby the Father's love for the infinite Truth (the Word) spirates the infinite Love that is the Holy Ghost.

Now let's read what DaveS wrote and apply it to the analogy.



Now, since man is a rational being by nature, it is necessary that he possess a rational intellect (at least in potency). If he lacked this, he would not be a rational being, and therefore would not be human. Therefore our rational intellect is a necessary part of our being. Secondly, free will, which is defined as the ability to make a moral choice, is only possessed by rational or intellectual creatures (man or angels). The lower animals do not have a rational soul, and therefore are not subject to God’s law. Since rational and intellectual creatures are capable of knowing God’s law, they have a corresponding duty to know and obey that law. And since free will flows naturally and necessarily from the rational intellect, it is therefore necessary in order for man to be a complete man. For if he lacked a free will, it would follow that he lacked a rational intellect by which he can make a moral choice; and if he lacks a rational intellect, he is not a rational being, and is therefore not a man. Therefore, for the being man (which is analogous to God the Father) to be complete, he must possess a rational intellect (which is analogous to the Word of God); and if he possesses a rational intellect, he must also possess a free will (which is analogous to the Holy Ghost).

Now, as with all analogies of God it will fall short in some ways, since God is an infinite and uncreated being, to which no created being can truly compare; nevertheless, I think this demonstrates the image of the Trinity within the being of man.
Any thoughts?

RSiscoe
Feb 6th 2011, 11:56 PM
God is Spirit-Soul-Body (Pneuma-Psuche-Soma) of One (Heis) Divinity (Theotes). God is not "persons" of any quantity.

When you say God is Spirit-Soul-Body, do you mean to imply that God had a body prior to the Incarnation - when "the Word was made Flesh"?


He spoke of Himself, His own Self; the One True God. He did not speak the Rhema substance-content of His Logos Reason-Intellect as another distinct "person" which brought forth yet a third. The only plurality in the Theotes relates to the reconciled spirit-soul-body elements of humanity in His Incarnation... No celestial tag-team or relay-race of multiple God-persons; rather, giving His own life for/to us

Since you do not believe in multiple persons, I have a few questions for you.

1.) When Jesus said "My Father, if it be possible, let this chalice pass from me. Nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt", who was this "Father" that Jesus spoke of whose will differed from His own?

2.) When Jesus said "And I will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever", why did Jesus speak of the Father as being distinct from Himself (someone that he would "ask" something of)? And who was the Paraclete that is described as being distinct from Both Jesus and the one Jesus calls Father?

3.) And when Jesus said "My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me", who was Jesus referring to? If the doctrine Jesus preached was not His, whose was it?

Scruffy Kid
Feb 7th 2011, 02:14 AM
As -SEEKING- (post #17) notes, this is a thread that lay dormant for two years; as Firefighter hilariously puts it a "zombie" thread.

The attempt to understand God's eternal being -- that of the God whom Christ Jesus proclaimed, the one eternal God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit -- needs to be closely grounded in the Scriptures. Attempts to reduce it to some natural analogy (water, steam, ice; or time, space, matter; or body, soul, spirit) depart from Scripture, in various ways, by departing from the image of a personal God which Scripture presents to us.

The Bible's Basic Doctrine of The One God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit

Scripture makes clear, from beginning to end, that there is but one God. Yet Jesus, who lived among us, makes clear in what He did and said, that He Himself, personally is God. (His eternal being as God is not diminished, however, by His full humanity; nor is His humanity and creatureliness compromised by His divinity!) Jesus, however, is not the Father, nor a part of the Father, but is in person-to-person dialogue with the Father, in somewhat the same way as one human person is with another. Christ addresses God (God the Father) as "Father", and prays to Him, and yields His own will to Him, and says that He (Christ) does only what He sees the Father doing, and so on. He likewise teaches us His followers to pray to the Father, in His (Christ's) name. Further, Christ instructs the disciples that when He has ascended to the Father, He (Christ) will send the Holy Spirit. He refers to the Spirit in personal terms, with the Greek text using a personal (masculine) pronoun for the Spirit, although the Greek word for Spirit (Pneuma) is grammatically neuter. He tells them (and thus us) that the Spirit is another helper (alios parakletos) like Himself. He tells the disciples to wait in Jerusalem until the Spirit has come upon them -- as happens in Acts 2. And he tells the disciples to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the son, and of the Holy Spirit.

All these elements clearly establish that in Christ's teaching -- and the teaching of the NT authors in other ways as well --

There is one God only
God is addressed by Christ as Father, and prays to Him as such
Christ Himself is God, and is and has been so eternally.
Yet Christ is also fully a human being.
Yet evidently Christ Jesus is not the Father, and the Father not Christ: they are distinct persons in dialogue
The Holy Spirit likewise is, as Christ is, God.
The Father and Son and Holy Spirit are equally in Godhead (that is, in their God-ness, their Divine-ness)
The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one, and indwell one another
These basic Scriptural truths underlie the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity, as it was formulated from the earliest times, and as it was worked out and finally consolidated in the Nicene Creed. The same applies, also, to the doctrine of the full humanity and full divinity of Christ together with the understanding that He is one Christ, one person, not divided in two.

This Basic Biblical Doctrine has been taught, and given clear logical formulation, by the Church Through the Ages

It is the case that the lovely and lifegiving truth which Scripture gives to us, and which the basic Creeds of the church help formulate in a systematic way can readily be summed up in a few short pithy sentences or phrases: "Three persons in one God", "Fully God and fully man", or in words like "incarnation" or "Trinity" or "Triune". It is, in a way, helpful to have such summary phrases. "The three in one and one in three". They express in a word or two, and effectively evoke, the vital complex life-giving truth of the One God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit which is revealed to us by, and in, Jesus Christ.

However, it is rather unhelpful to start from such expressions ("three in one", say) and then try to find examples of other things which are "three in one". For the basic reality which is being expressed is not about three-ness and one-ness, but about Christ and the Father and the Holy Spirit. These are revealled to us in Scripture not as abstractions, but as the living God -- one God -- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and with Christ our Lord, who indeed is eternally God with the Father and the Holy Spirit, in dialogue with the Father, in inter-personal relationship with the Father. There is no hint, anywhere, of anything else, such as that Christ is some "manifestation" of God, or that the Father is "Soul" and the Son "Body", or that these are "dimensions" of God as hight, width, and breadth are dimensions of physical things. The interpersonal character of the Divine Unity, that is of God, is strongly emphasized by Jesus's use of the terms "Father" and "Son"; and also by Christ's ethics, which place emphasis upon love as foundational, and by the metaphysical statements of God's eternal character as love, particularly in I John 4, and the central place of love in the whole structure of New Testament teaching.

Some Cautions and implications

Of course, the "personalness" of God -- strongly emphasized in the monotheism of the OT as well -- goes together with the understanding that God is not as we are, but is far, far beyond us. He is not a "person" in just the sense that we are persons, of course. Similarly for the "interpersonal" character of the one God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The "persons" of the Trinity, while distinct, are also completely one. Thus, as John 17 emphasizes, they mutually indwell one another. God the Son, the Eternal Word, became man "emptying himself" (heauton ekenosen) of His Divine attributes, but that does not mean that He ceased, as God, to govern the universe and sustain it in being: it was rather a "taking" (morphe doulou labon) or taking up, of human and creaturely existence, which compromised neither His divine and changeless being as God, nor His full humanity and, as man, mutability. It is this diverse, but vital, set of truths which Scripture clearly sets out which the reflection of the whole Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, carefully defended in the classical creeds of the Church.

These truths are, also, not apart in any way from the vital core of Salvation, of soteriology. Christ -- to bear the sins of the whole world -- must be God, both because God is the offended party, and because the work of bearing our sins is more than any mere creature could suffice to do. Christ to reach, in His saving act, we who are human beings must, Himself, be a human being. As He must be both, He must be one Christ. As He thus does span the full distance between God who is Holy and Good and all-powerful, and creatures who are weak, mere dust, and sinful -- that is, less than nothing -- to boot, He unites heaven and earth in what He does, and brings us to God, and effects the cosmic redemption of which Paul speaks (as do the Prophets).

RSiscoe
Feb 7th 2011, 02:38 AM
Excellent post Scruffy. To compliment what you wrote, I thought I would post the Athanasian Creed (circa 361), which is a thorough and beautiful exposition of the truths of the Trinity and Divinity of Christ.

Athanasian Creed

1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic faith;

2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.

3. And the Catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;

4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.

5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.

6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.

7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.

8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.

9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.

10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.

11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.

12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.

13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.

14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.

15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;

16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.

17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;

18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.

19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;

20. So are we forbidden by the Catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.

21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.

22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.

23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.

25. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another.

26. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal.

27. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.

28. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.

29. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.

30. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.

31. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world.

32. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.

33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.

34. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.

35. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God.

36. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.

37. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;

38. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead;

39. He ascended into heaven, He sits on the right hand of the Father, God, Almighty;

40. From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

41. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;

42. and shall give account of their own works.

43. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.

44. This is the Catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.

Athanasius
Feb 7th 2011, 10:11 AM
Ha! Take that, Arius...

PneumaPsucheSoma
Feb 8th 2011, 05:10 PM
When you say God is Spirit-Soul-Body, do you mean to imply that God had a body prior to the Incarnation - when "the Word was made Flesh"?

Since you do not believe in multiple persons, I have a few questions for you.

1.) When Jesus said "My Father, if it be possible, let this chalice pass from me. Nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt", who was this "Father" that Jesus spoke of whose will differed from His own?

2.) When Jesus said "And I will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever", why did Jesus speak of the Father as being distinct from Himself (someone that he would "ask" something of)? And who was the Paraclete that is described as being distinct from Both Jesus and the one Jesus calls Father?

3.) And when Jesus said "My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me", who was Jesus referring to? If the doctrine Jesus preached was not His, whose was it?

Rather than repeat here, I'll refer you to the trinity debate thread. There are a few other older threads in BC and Contro if you want to know the simple answers to what you think are difficult questions.

God Bless!

PneumaPsucheSoma
Feb 8th 2011, 05:14 PM
Ha! Take that, Arius...

Arius was, of course, long dead by then. So was Athanasius, who didn't pen it; also, there's no record of this coming from that Council, instead being presented over 100 years later and attributed to your screen namesake. :-)

Athanasius
Feb 8th 2011, 05:39 PM
Arius was, of course, long dead by then. So was Athanasius, who didn't pen it; also, there's no record of this coming from that Council, instead being presented over 100 years later and attributed to your screen namesake. :-)

And all I ever wanted to be was important :(

PneumaPsucheSoma
Feb 8th 2011, 06:23 PM
Excellent post Scruffy. To compliment what you wrote, I thought I would post the Athanasian Creed (circa 361), which is a thorough and beautiful exposition of the truths of the Trinity and Divinity of Christ.

Athanasian Creed

1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic faith;

Unbiblical. Whosoever will be saved isn't required to hold any doctrinal formulation of man.


2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.

The Word doesn't say OR imply this.


3. And the Catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;

Trinity is the Catholic faith, not Scriptural faith. It is a compromised formulation of man's doctrine. Trinity is extra-biblical.


4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.

"Person(s)" is extra-biblical and inferred. True... There is only one substance.


5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.

The F-S-HS are not "persons". Otherwise, true.


6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.

Affirmed.


7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.

Affirmed.


8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.

Affirmed.


9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.

Affirmed, with an asterisk. God is as comprehensible as He reveals Himself to be.


10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.

Affirmed.


11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.

Affirmed.


12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.

Affirmed.


13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.

Affirmed.


14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.

Affirmed.


15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;

Affirmed.


16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.

Affirmed.


17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;

Affirmed.


18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.

Affirmed.


19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;

Besides "Person", Affirmed.


20. So are we forbidden by the Catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.

Affirmed. (The Catholic Religion bit needs to be scalpelled out, though.)


21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.

Affirmed.


22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.

Affirmed, with an asterisk. Jesus procreded*forth (exerchomai) from God specifically and came (heko) when begotten of the Father.


23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

Affirmed, with an asterisk. The Holy Spirit proceedeth (exdoreuomai) from the Father, sent (pempo) by Jesus.


24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.

Affirmed.


25. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another.

Besides "Trinity", Affirmed.


26. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal.

Besides "persons", Affirmed.


27. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.

Apart from "Trinity", Affirmed.


28. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.

Absolutely UNbiblical.


29. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Affirmed.


30. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.

Affirmed.


31. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world.

Affirmed.


32. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.

Affirmed.


33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.

Affirmed.


34. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.

Affirmed.


35. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God.

Affirmed.


36. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.

Besides "persons", Affirmed.


37. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;

Affirmed.


38. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead;

Affirmed.


39. He ascended into heaven, He sits on the right hand of the Father, God, Almighty;

Affirmed, with an asterisk. The right hand is not a "celestial location", but a position.


40. From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

Affirmed.


41. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;

Affirmed.


42. and shall give account of their own works.

Affirmed.


43. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.

Affirmed.


44. This is the Catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.

God Almighty is the arbiter on this matter. No anonymously-attributed creed or formulation may declare judgement of man's salvation. This creed is not the inspired Divine Word, regardless what many think. :-)

PneumaPsucheSoma
Feb 8th 2011, 06:29 PM
And all I ever wanted to be was important :(

You are unquestionably important to your Savior and some of us your Brothers! ...Aristotle. :-)

Athanasius
Feb 8th 2011, 08:18 PM
You are unquestionably important to your Savior and some of us your Brothers! ...Aristotle. :-)

Ha :} Indeed~

WSGAC
Feb 10th 2011, 01:14 AM
Ok, I'll take a shot at this. Not sure how to relate it to creation, but by noting that nothing stands on its own in creation. That is, all things stand in relationship to something else, and only in relationship are they understood.

Most of us have heard the various explanations and analogies used to convey the mystery of the Trinity…how the three persons are “one.” I remember in my Sunday School days as a kid, the teacher telling us the God was like a rope comprised of three individual pieces of twine…three pieces of twine, but one rope. I remember the egg analogy…God is like an egg…one egg, but made up of three parts – yolk, white and shell. I remember the water analogy…God is like water which can take various forms/modes – liquid, steam and ice.

None of these analogies really get at the “essence” of the Trinity which is relational in essence, and not functional...or modal. Hence, none of the analogies above help us to understand the relationship between the three.

The God we worship is “relational” in character, and He has created us in such a way that reflects what He is like. The life, joy, fullness of God is known in the love that exists between the Father and the Son. Indeed, do we not find the same here on earth (broken as we are), when we are in relationship? We find joy, meaning, fullness of life when we are in communion with others. Sin has certainly fractured things, but one day perfect communion will exist here on earth as it is in heaven. The perfect communion of Father, Son and Holy Spirit will extend to us when sin and death are finally eradicated and we are caught up into the divine life of God.

John of Damascus, in the 8th century, probably explained the Trinity better than any other. He used the Greek term perichoresis to signify his explanation of a key text in John’s Gospel where Jesus says, “I am in my Father, and my Father is in me.” (John 14:10) Perichoresis is understood as as a "cleaving together." Such is the fellowship in the Godhead that the Father and the Son not only embrace each other, but they also enter into each other, permeate each other, and dwell in each other. One in being, they are also always one in the intimacy of their friendship. When one of them acts, he does so “for” the other, “in behalf of” the other, “on account of” the other, “through” the other, “with” the other. Each participates and acts in love for the other, and each receives perfectly what is given. A symbol which best describes this relationship is the symbol of the figure eight turned horizontal…the symbol for infinity where the path takes one back into and through the center, around again and through the center. To encircle, envelope, pass through the other is what John meant by perichoresis, where Father and Son actually “indwell” and “abide in” each other.

In Eastern Christianity, perichoresis is also associated with deification as part of salvation. Many mistakenly misinterpret this to mean that humans are made into gods. John of Damascus meant by it that redeemed humanity is drawn into the perichoresis of the divine love that exists between Father and Son, and thus participates in the relationship with Father and Son. In other words, human beings are brought into the relationship of the divine and thus become one with God, communing with the divine as the divine persons have done throughout eternity.

Where in the Bible would St. John of Damascus get such an idea? Look at Jesus’ words in John 17:20ff.

“I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me. And I have given them the glory you gave me, so that they may be one, as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may be brought to perfection as one, that the world may know that you sent me, and that you loved me, and that you loved them even as you loved me…that the love with which you loved me may be in them and I in them.”

Notice the words in the passage…that they may be one, as we are one. I in them and you in me. Brought to perfection as one. The love with which you loved me may be in them and I in them.

Such words speak of a oneness that is the result of the “love” that exists between Father and Son…a love which binds them as one…a love that is extended to us that we too might be “one” with the Son and the Father. It is this “Love” which binds Father and Son in perichoresis to the other.

“Beloved let us love one another for love is of God, and he who loves is born of God and knows God. He who does not love does not know God, for God is love.” 1 John 4: 7 ff.

This love that exists between Father and Son, which unites and binds them, is of such a quality, such dynamic character, such a power, such a mysterious freedom, that it has personality all of its own. It is the Spirit of God’s love, and when given to us, catches us up into the divine life shared between Father and Son. It is this mysterious loving Spirit that makes us one with the Father and Son.

When all of creation participates, then God is all in all....the Kingdom of God!

PneumaPsucheSoma
Feb 10th 2011, 02:17 AM
St. John of Damascus also said:

"We have learned that there is a difference between generation (begetting) and procession, but the nature of the difference we in no wise understand."

That's what comes of a faulty foundation. God is not three persons.

I do love some of St. John of D.'s flowery language and emphasis of love.

After the Filioque Clause debacle of the West, the doctrinal position went so far as to say the Spirit was a personified procession of the love between the Father and the Son. Quite ridiculous, and could produce infinite persons in the Godhead. Trinity has wrought more goofiness than any other doctrine; nobody knows the real history. I know where ALL the bodies are buried. You guys shoulda taken the red pill...

Firefighter
Feb 10th 2011, 01:44 PM
I know where ALL the bodies are buried. You guys shoulda taken the red pill...

No thanks. Apparently it makes people way to humble as well. :rolleyes:

PneumaPsucheSoma
Feb 10th 2011, 03:33 PM
No thanks. Apparently it makes people way to humble as well. :rolleyes:

As usual, positional assurance is taken for personal arrogance by anyone aboard the orthodox passenger train that has arrogantly anathematized everything and everyone else for millennia. Just because I'm willing to stand on the Word in the middle of the tracks, doesn't mean I'm not humble or loving.

Maybe I'm willing to make every effort to derail the train out of love, with no regard for myself. Nobody considers that, while ordering from the trinity menu in the dining car, which is far removed from the engines and near the back of the train.

I'm a piece of dirt with nothing to offer of myself. Maybe the mysteries of God CAN be known; and NOT by some Gnostic elitism that's actually mimicked in many of men's Christian doctrinal formulations. Maybe 1Corinthians 3:12 is true, "...that we might know (oida G1492) the things that are freely given to us of God." Ginosko/gnosis to epiginosko/epignosis is an essential part of our walk as an intensifying growth of our experiential knowledge of Him (1Corinthians 13:12). But we cannot truly GNOSIS Him, which has led to profound heresies without and within the Christian faith. We must OIDA Him, which is inherent, innate intuitive knowledge, which comes by communion of our spirit rather than the mind-will of our soul. Education (soul) is not revelation (spirit).

At some point, we have to move beyond the doctrine of Christ to maturity. Briefly declaring a doctrinal formulation and skipping over the rest as "a mystery" isn't a point to move on from. Evidently, proceeding from such a point to teach or share with others isn't arrogance, but whatever I say is.

Why not declare and share a powerful simple Gospel of Jesus and leave off piggy-back attempts to formulate God well beyond one's own revelation understanding? I do; I just share Jesus, not S-S-B. New babes don't have a chance NOT to be indoctrinated with a view that they will most-often never truly challenge or rescind; even if they leave church or whatever. ALL religions indoctrinate early converts, and it's highly effective for retention. There's huge accountability in that. Maybe THAT kind of thing is why I am zealous, instead of arrogance. Maybe the established orthodoxy is blindly arrogant in these areas.

Blue Pills are for Smurfs. Jesus' bled Crimson. Red Pill Rulez!! :-)

Vhayes
Feb 10th 2011, 03:41 PM
Ok - so what is the destruction Trinitarians are headed toward on this train?

PneumaPsucheSoma
Feb 10th 2011, 03:48 PM
BTW... "MATRIX" is the base (G3384) for metra (G3388)... womb. Much travail. Gotta be born.

PneumaPsucheSoma
Feb 10th 2011, 04:12 PM
Ok - so what is the destruction Trinitarians are headed toward on this train?

You misunderstand the analogy. First of all, as efficient as the railways have been, they were built by a combination of industrious AND unscrupulous men at great cost to many others. Existing land owners were displaced, even killed; and nothing was allowed to stand in the way of "progress". Regardless of its history, now that it's built everyone just climbs aboard presuming it to be the appropriate means of transport from where they are to where they need to go. With such momentum, anything on the tracks is trespassing and is run down. The passengers are too busy gorging on prepared dining car food from the selected menu to notice anything ahead; but the view out the side windows sure seems pretty.

Maybe there's a Cirrus-equipped crash-proof passenger JET of transcendant truth off in the distance, and the train is gonna derail. I'm just trying to stop it before then for the sake of whoever might not survive that death.

Nobody said all trinitarians are lost because of their doctrine. Some are; somewhere between few and most. I can't know those hearts. You don't seem to have any problem understanding how everybody else could be lost because of HOW they believe in Jesus. Oneness believers are sorta confused with Unitarians somehow and are considered by trinis as lost, yet they believe in the Deity of Christ; just not that He's part of a trinity. How is this not incongruous?

I don't ever presume a tone from you, BTW. I don't have one, either. :-)

Vhayes
Feb 10th 2011, 04:19 PM
PPS I need to go away and think about this some more and pray about it before I answer.

The people in this car are not gorging themselves. All the men and women who have gone before are not mindless robots who follow along blindly.

Why is it that you seem to see it that way?

PneumaPsucheSoma
Feb 10th 2011, 04:24 PM
Asfor the OP:

Creation isn't three universes of one universe. It's three dimensionally-determinate "parts" of one universe that have different defining functional aspects.

Even if it's a "meta-verse", it's not three meta-verses of one meta-verse.

All those "three-things" aren't "trinities", they're constituent parts of the one... just like God.

WSGAC
Feb 10th 2011, 04:26 PM
St. John of Damascus also said:

"We have learned that there is a difference between generation (begetting) and procession, but the nature of the difference we in no wise understand."

That's what comes of a faulty foundation. God is not three persons.

I do love some of St. John of D.'s flowery language and emphasis of love.

After the Filioque Clause debacle of the West, the doctrinal position went so far as to say the Spirit was a personified procession of the love between the Father and the Son. Quite ridiculous, and could produce infinite persons in the Godhead. Trinity has wrought more goofiness than any other doctrine; nobody knows the real history. I know where ALL the bodies are buried. You guys shoulda taken the red pill...

Yeah, that is an obvioius problem. Always wondered about that personified procession of love thing. If the Spirit is love, how can it be said the Spirit too loves? Hey, I took a shot....down in flames. Alas!

Good stuff PneumaPsucheSoma!

PneumaPsucheSoma
Feb 10th 2011, 04:31 PM
PPS I need to go away and think about this some more and pray about it before I answer.

The people in this car are not gorging themselves. All the men and women who have gone before are not mindless robots who follow along blindly.

Why is it that you seem to see it that way?

I don't. There isn't space or means to express what's in my heart about this on the forum. It's just perceived as arrogance and condescension. The analogy isn't judgement or condemnation; it's description. Other than an early exchange with one particular member, NOTHING I've ever said is personal, judgemental, or arrogant.

Vhayes
Feb 10th 2011, 04:39 PM
Then why say people who are on the train are gorging themselves?

You may not mean it to come across as judgmental but that IS how it comes across. It would be the same thing as me saying anyone who adheres to the merismos school of thought is enjoying the perceived attention of having "special knowledge" that the rest of us cannot comprehend.

I may not mean it to be about YOU specifically but I'm sure you would take umbrage at that sentence.

Athanasius
Feb 10th 2011, 05:04 PM
[T]hey're constituent parts of the one... just like God.

'Like God' only if we're speaking of (three) constituent parts, correct? We wouldn't say, for instance, that 'reality' is 'just like God' because it's (apparently) comprised of 11 'constituent' dimemsions.

PneumaPsucheSoma
Feb 10th 2011, 05:19 PM
Yeah, that is an obvioius problem. Always wondered about that personified procession of love thing. If the Spirit is love, how can it be said the Spirit too loves? Hey, I took a shot....down in flames. Alas!

Good stuff PneumaPsucheSoma!

No flames... nothing personal. :-) I was actually quite pleased to see someone posting stuff. The whole Filioque Clause issue just blurred things to bring about all kinds of weirdness. Augustine was a huge impediment, too. He didn't even maintain a distinction in the "persons", presenting trinity as God with attributes before Persons.

After Filioque, the formulation insisted the HS procreded from both the Father and the Son, eventually being explained as the personified procession of love between the F-S. Okay... Then the F-HS's love would be a personified procession of a 4th person; then the S-HS's love would be a 5th; then the F-4th's love would be a 6th; then the S-4th's love would be a 7th... Ad infinitum.

Then... the doctrine of "Development of Doctrine" prohibited changing any previous doctrinal formulation (which is largely where we get our reverent acceptance of past doctrine without challenge). The end-run around that was to change it without changing it, by reverting to sent instead of proceeding, which isn't according to John 15:26.

History is littered with trinity mess that has been swept aside in the name of "unknowable mysteries of God". I stand on 1Cor. 2:5-16 and the rest of the Word, which doesn't reveal trinity unless you take trinity TO it.

Sola Scriptura, yes?

PneumaPsucheSoma
Feb 10th 2011, 05:51 PM
'Like God' only if we're speaking of (three) constituent parts, correct? We wouldn't say, for instance, that 'reality' is 'just like God' because it's (apparently) comprised of 11 'constituent' dimemsions.

Yes. I was directly comparing all the "three" analogies for trinity, which almost always represent triad, modalism, tripartite, or... just three.

Someone presented God as nine (no names). No 11 yet, AFAIK. :-)

(I still chuckle frequently about that Thrasymachus comment... You, sir, are highly underestimated, methinks.)

Athanasius
Feb 10th 2011, 05:51 PM
Yes. I was directly comparing all the "three" analogies for trinity, which almost always represent triad, modalism, tripartite, or... just three.

Someone presented God as nine (no names). No 11 yet, AFAIK. :-)

The 11 was just an example :P Who would present God as nine...

PneumaPsucheSoma
Feb 10th 2011, 06:06 PM
The 11 was just an example :P Who would present God as nine...

A modern religious television personality that dresses a bit like Boss Hogg...

(Reread the edit-add in my last post...)

Athanasius
Feb 10th 2011, 06:37 PM
A modern religious television personality that dresses a bit like Boss Hogg...

(Reread the edit-add in my last post...)

Aha... I thinks I know to whom you refer.

As for your edit, I'm not other people so I don't know if I'm underestimated. You're probably right to some extent, as I'm very purposely reserved (for instance, I'm very careful with what I say, especially here. The same is true with how I act.). I don't, for example, enjoy debating online... But I don't mind a good conversation, so I 'converse' (or, at least, I consider it conversing). I find it very easy to appear open and outgoing, but the reality - if I'm being honest - is that very few people actually know me (for me), and that is for a plurality of reasons I wouldn't dare outline. So after giving it a moment's thought, you're probably right, though I'm not sure in which way.

I think the Thrasymachus comment reveals something in terms of how I think, and I would even dare place myself inside that particular 'tradition' - or way of thought and life - known as 'Socratic'. For a number of reasons I won't go into, the ideas of virtue, the 'examined / unexamined life' and 'following the argument...' are very important to me, especially when it comes to wisdom - knowing that I'm not wise.

PneumaPsucheSoma
Feb 10th 2011, 06:45 PM
Then why say people who are on the train are gorging themselves?

You may not mean it to come across as judgmental but that IS how it comes across. It would be the same thing as me saying anyone who adheres to the merismos school of thought is enjoying the perceived attention of having "special knowledge" that the rest of us cannot comprehend.

I may not mean it to be about YOU specifically but I'm sure you would take umbrage at that sentence.


Let me reiterate... I'm a piece of dirt and have nothing to offer of myself. All I have, I've received (1Cor. 4:6-7). Knowing the terror of the Lord, we persuade men.

Let me now get very personal... I discern you to be a genuine, loving, tender, overcoming, prudent, insightful, faithful true believer of deep courage with much strength. Tom also.

That doesn't make the truth any less important. Maybe it's the deeper truth being given to those who will be able and faithful to share it.

The only reason it may take a Didaskolos to "know" this truth is because of well-established incomplete teaching. Apart from that, the knowledge of God is available to all. There is a sense of intentional mystery (musterion G3466) in the Word, but it's not a Gnostic type of heresy. Musterion indicates something hidden and not fully manifested; a secret sacred hidden thing, which is naturally unknown to human reason and is only known by the revelation of God's Reason (Logos-Word). Paul speaks of this, especially the Incarnation, as a plain allusion to the Eleusinian Mysteries, which were distinguished as small and great. The mystery is to be understood by man, not left concealed or given only to a select few.

John penned The Revelation... not The Concealation. The whole reason for the natural creation and the Incarnation was to reveal Himself to mankind... to BE known. Reverence is not asserting the unknowableness of God; reverence is recognizing the source of that knowledge and attaining unto it by His Spirit according to His will and gracious provision. His ways/thoughts are not ours, BUT... we have the mind of Christ IF we LET it be in us.

PneumaPsucheSoma
Feb 10th 2011, 06:59 PM
Aha... I thinks I know to whom you refer.

As for your edit, I'm not other people so I don't know if I'm underestimated. You're probably right to some extent, as I'm very purposely reserved (for instance, I'm very careful with what I say, especially here. The same is true with how I act.). I don't, for example, enjoy debating online... But I don't mind a good conversation, so I 'converse' (or, at least, I consider it conversing). I find it very easy to appear open and outgoing, but the reality - if I'm being honest - is that very few people actually know me (for me), and that is for a plurality of reasons I wouldn't dare outline. So after giving it a moment's thought, you're probably right, though I'm not sure in which way.

I think the Thrasymachus comment reveals something in terms of how I think, and I would even dare place myself inside that particular 'tradition' - or way of thought and life - known as 'Socratic'. For a number of reasons I won't go into, the ideas of virtue, the 'examined / unexamined life' and 'following the argument...' are very important to me, especially when it comes to wisdom - knowing that I'm not wise.

I get that... it all makes perfect and fitting sense. And there is much to a Socratic methodology if not exclusive and extreme.

Thrasymachus should be in the running for your next screen name. I'll pay you... :-)

Athanasius
Feb 11th 2011, 03:26 AM
I get that... it all makes perfect and fitting sense. And there is much to a Socratic methodology if not exclusive and extreme.

Thrasymachus should be in the running for your next screen name. I'll pay you... :-)

Money! Hmm... Sadly (although somewhat not sadly), I don't think they'd let me.
...Ahem, such injustice...

markedward
Feb 12th 2011, 10:43 PM
Who would present God as nine...Just in case you don't know, the idea is based solely upon Revelation 1... John sends blessings on behalf of "Him who is, and who was, and who will come" and "the seven spirits which are present before his throne", and "Jesus Christ". The first being the Father (1), the last being the Son (2), and hence, the "seven spirits" being... the Seven Holy Spirits (9). It's a ludicrous belief, considering it's relies entirely upon a single verse...

Athanasius
Feb 13th 2011, 01:32 AM
Just in case you don't know, the idea is based solely upon Revelation 1... John sends blessings on behalf of "Him who is, and who was, and who will come" and "the seven spirits which are present before his throne", and "Jesus Christ". The first being the Father (1), the last being the Son (2), and hence, the "seven spirits" being... the Seven Holy Spirits (9). It's a ludicrous belief, considering it's relies entirely upon a single verse...

Thanks, I didn't (know). How odd...

PneumaPsucheSoma
Feb 14th 2011, 04:06 AM
Thanks, I didn't (know). How odd...

The above is correct. God has also been presented by others as nine, with each trinity person being spirit-soul-body. Three persons with three parts each.

Hunter121
Mar 8th 2011, 09:59 PM
EVERYONE, let's not forget about the 2nd commandment, You shall not make for yourself any carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, in the people set up a calf as a symbol of god and they danced and sang around it some worshiped it, and they thought what they were praising god, because the calf was a symbolized god (or so they though), and god grew angry and punished the israelites because they had set up a carved image of god.

So if the top of the cross represents god in the trinity people are sinning, I would suggest people stay away from the trinity

Firefighter
Mar 9th 2011, 12:42 PM
That's taking it a bit far don'tcha think Hunter???

RabbiKnife
Mar 9th 2011, 01:56 PM
Let's all calm down and sing a song. All together now....

"I don't care if it rains or freezes,
Long as I've got my plastic Jesus...
Sittin' on the dashboard of my car..."

PneumaPsucheSoma
Mar 10th 2011, 05:06 AM
That's taking it a bit far don'tcha think Hunter???

At least he's not a REALLY arrogant heretic like me, eh?! ;-)

PneumaPsucheSoma
Mar 10th 2011, 05:08 AM
Let's all calm down and sing a song. All together now....

"I don't care if it rains or freezes,
Long as I've got my plastic Jesus...
Sittin' on the dashboard of my car..."

Hey... You can't talk about part of the Mini-Pleroma like that! ;-)