Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Intellectually?
They first purified their hearts of passions, and their nous was illuminated. This illumination of the nous is not just knowledge of the archetypes of beings, but the coming of the grace of God into the heart. As a result of this, they attained the vision of God, which is seeing God in the uncreated Light. It is in this way that the holy Prophets, Apostles, and saints received the revelation, the manifestation of God in their hearts.
Therefore theology is not related to philosophy, but more akin to medicine. And indeed we observe that all the heretics through the ages used philosophy, whereas the holy Fathers lived hesychasm.
The truth of God does not come from "Platonic, Neo-Platonic, Neo-Pythagorean, Aristotelian, and Stoic philosophy among other sources"
and "gaining experiential gnosis" but from faith in Christ.
It's "not JUST knowledge of the archetype of beings"? How more neo-platonic (not to mention gnostic) could that statement be!
Of course it is neo-platonic. He was saying ITS NOT that. He was differentiating the goal of philosophy and that of theology . It is vision of God and NOT contemplation of the archetypes of being that the Christian seeks.
The notion of God coming to earth and dwelling among us in the flesh was both foolishness and anathema to the Greek philosophers. The argument that the hypostatic union is a Greek invention has no basis in reality.Excuse me but you need to read the text I'm referring to again.
"... This illumination of the nous is not just knowledge of the archetypes of beings,..."
I shouldn't have to explain this, but it is in fact just "that" -"knowledge of the archetypes of beings" plus whatever else he adds.
Jesus says "I am the light" not "the illumination of the nous is not just knowledge of the archetypes of beings, but the coming of the grace of God into the heart." Any child can understand and believe the former, the latter is pure greek philosophy.
For those who dont know what the "archetype of beings" is, it's straight out of Plotinus and his predecessor Plato's "realm of the forms", is it not?
And the "hypostasis" certainly does originate in Aristotle, whoever it was applied to hundreds of years later. Where in the Bible, as Micahel Servetus asked (and was burnt at the stake for it) is Christ the "hypostasis"?
The notion of God coming to earth and dwelling among us in the flesh was both foolishness and anathema to the Greek philosophers. The argument that the hypostatic union is a Greek invention has no basis in reality.
The word itself is not in the bible. It is the attempt by early theologians to reconcile what is in the bible against heretics like Servetus.
What I said was that the term originates in Aristotle and was applied centuries later, in this case, to Christ, making him what you call "the hypostatic union".
You're only making my point that the Trinity originates in greek philosophy.
I'd love to hear what you think is heretical about Servetus but it would be going too far afield from this subject, I suppose. Nevertheless I can't resist making this quote from his 'On the Errors of the Trinity';
“... I see these men approaching their lofty speculation about the Word without having any fundamental understanding of Christ, and they attach little or no importance to the man, and give the true Christ quite over to oblivion.”
The Trinity originates in heaven. The word to describe it is borrowed from the Greeks. We are saying to entirely different things.What I said was that the term originates in Aristotle and was applied centuries later, in this case, to Christ, making him what you call "the hypostatic union".
You're only making my point that the Trinity originates in greek philosophy.
You described his heresy yourself.I'd love to hear what you think is heretical about Servetus but it would be going too far afield from this subject, I suppose. Nevertheless I can't resist making this quote from his 'On the Errors of the Trinity';
... I see these men approaching their lofty speculation about the Word without having any fundamental understanding of Christ, and they attach little or no importance to the man, and give the true Christ quite over to oblivion.
It is a conclusion drawn from greek philosophy by "church fathers" centuries after the Bible was written, as has been clearly established in this thread by contributors other than me.
I could just as easily argue that creating confusion by making God into three persons is impious. Jesus makes it clear that even little children can grasp the true nature of God.
I can recall being completely confused by the Trinity as a child and becoming an atheist later because of it. What kind of messed up God is that? was my conclusion.
But that's just me, and plenty of others out there.
Well, that's a start I guess.
No, if I were a God with three persons inside me, I would certainly be confused. Christians don't revere the supposed "God in three persons" (or is it "three persons in God"?) but the God in Christ.
I shouldn't have to explain this, but it is in fact just "that" -"knowledge of the archetypes of beings" plus whatever else he adds
it's straight out of Plotinus and his predecessor Plato's "realm of the forms", is it not?
Christ who is one of the Holy Trinity.Who is "is the reflection of God's glory and the exact likeness of his being", Christ or the Trinity?
Who is "the image of the invisible God", Christ or the Trinity?
Who is the one who we worship as the very incarnation of God, Christ or the Trinity?
Who is the one "who loved us and gave his life for us", Christ or the Trinity?
Who do we wait for to return from heaven, Christ or the Trinity?
Who will judge the world in the last day, Christ or the Trinity?
i would appeal to certain jewish cocepts such as devar adonai, the targumic concept of memra, the motif of shekinah and a whole raft of other pre-new-testament ideas as the bedrock for this belief.
for those looking for a jewish slant, cosider this link.
steve
1) Could you begin to demonstrate that the Bible actually teaches the Trinity even though it never uses the word
The Eastern Orthodox understanding of the Trinity is quite fascinating and goes far deeper than I am going to address. I would highly recommend reading Eastern sources along those lines.
However, a cursory reading of the first chapter of the Gospel of John indicates quite strongly that although there is only one God, there is some form of distinction within Him -- i.e., between Himself and His eternal Word, through which He made all things. However, when the Word became Incarnate, this was not "a piece of God" as though God were divisible. So, as to the Son (who is also called the Word) one has it from John that he is God. However, the Son is the Father. A glib way of putting this is that Jesus wasn't talking to himself when he prayed.
A similar case can be made for the Holy Spirit, especially from the book of Acts, though I am not immediately aware of any language quite as strong as John's regarding the matter.
2) Could you provide an Old Testament defence of this? Why is their no awareness of this idea before Christ in the Jewish community?
What you're asking about was actually a very popular practice in the early Church. Many of the Church Fathers talk about instances of the various Persons making appearances in the Old Testament. Justin Martyr has the earliest extant (as far as I'm aware) non-New Testament argument along these lines.
3) What does the Trinity say about the nature of God- what insight does it give us into God?
There, you should definitely read some of the theological literature (especially, though not exclusively from the East). Exploring insofar as one is able is a substantially spiritually rewarding practice. As an example, as touching true and eternal Divinity in Christ, knowledge of the Word is, itself, knowledge of God. In this sense, there is no intermediary between us and the Godhead. As for Christ raising us up in the atonement, it is a call into the so-called Divine dance.
4) What does it mean for our Christian lives to believe in a Trinitarian God as opposed to a Monotheistic one like the Jews or Muslims believe in? How does believing in the Trinity distinguish us from Polytheists also?
To the first point, Trinitarianism is monotheistic. As to arguing the Trinity to one who, as yet, has no interest in following Christ, it feels to me kind of like putting the cart before the horse. With regard to polytheism, if the gods are not always agreed, what is pious?
5) With what simple analogies would you try and explain the Trinity to someone else?
One of the troubles with much of doctrine (as with many things) is that many people don't understand that they can't understand... or worse: some think they _do_ understand. There is the example of the triple point, wherein a substance is simultaneously fully solid, liquid, and gas. But even that is a pale analogy at best.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?