Trinity

[Hoghead1]

Right. The word "divinity" is used.

But the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit have one divinity, equal glory, and coeternal majesty.

Quibbling over these words does not change the fact that the triune Godhead is (1) a reality and (2) ultimately incomprehensible, therefore to be accepted by faith. Those who reject the Trinity and the Deity of Christ cannot consider themselves as Christians, since those are the foundations of our faith.

It is often seen a incomprehensible due to the"mystery" of God. But I believe its paradoxes result from the muddled thinking on the part of teh fathers who proposed this doctrine.

 

[Cappadocious]

You have a problem with that?

You better believe it. Because when they challenge you, you'll leave them hanging and move on to a different thread, trying to hook the unlearned and unfamiliar in.

 

[Hoghead1]

You better believe it. Because when they challenge you, you'll leave them hanging and move on to a different thread, trying to hook the unlearned and unfamiliar in.

Look, you awe turning this into a personal attack on me. That's a big no-no here.

 

[Cappadocious]

Look, you awe turning this into a personal attack on me. That's a big no-no here.

Lol. Argumentum ad baculum from a Christian, huh?

 

[mikpat]

Perhaps it's Hogshead's thinking that is muddled rather than the Church Fathers. There are a dozen or more "mysteries' in Christianity that requires faith————-but if we don't like one or two and find them too puzzling, we can refer to one or two as "muddled thinking of the Church Fathers" and brush them off.

 

[Hoghead1]

Perhaps it's Hogshead's thinking that is muddled rather than the Church Fathers. There are a dozen or more "mysteries' in Christianity that requires faith————-but if we don't like one or two and find them too puzzling, we can refer to one or two as "muddled thinking of the Church Fathers" and brush them off.

Yes, some "mysteries" may require faith, but oftentimes the mystery is a way of justifying and sanctifying contradictory thinking. In the case of the Trinity, the fathers, relying on Hellenic metaphysics, defined God as a wholly simple, immutable, nonrelational being, a monad. Then they introduced the highly complex, relational machinery into this monad. The result was confusion and contradiction, which many unduly attributed to the great "mystery" of God.

 

[FireDragon76]

I don't see the Trinity as a contradiction so much as a mystery. It's not supposed to be something to be understood but something that illuminates. We are relational beings because God is fundamentally relational, his essence is found in his perichoresis (indwelling).

God being defined as a monad is more western theology, where the trinity was never a doctrine that was deeply contemplated. The Eastern Orthodox church, the ones that actually inherited the most the living Greek tradition of the fathers, don't first start talking about God as an impersonal essence: they emphasize the Threeness.

Saying the trinity is "separate personalities" is likewise an error . God, in his threeness nonetheless has a unity in being that is real.

Of course these things are difficult to comprehend... we aren't God. And that's really the whole point of this theology. It seems to me the alternative is a domesticated God we put in a box.

 

[Hoghead1]

I don't see the Trinity as a contradiction so much as a mystery. It's not supposed to be something to be understood but something that illuminates. We are relational beings because God is fundamentally relational, his essence is found in his perichoresis (indwelling).

God being defined as a monad is more western theology, where the trinity was never a doctrine that was deeply contemplated. The Eastern Orthodox church, the ones that actually inherited the most the living Greek tradition of the fathers, don't first start talking about God as an impersonal essence: they emphasize the Threeness.

Saying the trinity is "separate personalities" is likewise an error . God, in his threeness nonetheless has a unity in being that is real.

Of course these things are difficult to comprehend... we aren't God. And that's really the whole point of this theology. It seems to me the alternative is a domesticated God we put in a box.

Where on earth did you get the idea that the Trinity was not seriously contemplated in the West? Have you read Augustine's "De Trinitate"?
God defined as monad is more Western? Evidence please
The whole point of theology is to explain things. What do you consider a domesticated God we put in a box?
Yes, three separate personalities is a problem. Had you read the Cappadocians, you would realize they contended there are really three separate personalities ; however, they amount to one God because they work in perfect harmony. However, three gods working in harmony is still three gods.

 

[anonymouswho]

Does the bible teach the trinity? Many seem to deny the trinity since the word is not found

I do not have a problem with the fact that "trinity" is not found in the Bible. This is because I don't believe in the trinity ; )

I also have no problem that the following terms and phrases are not in the Bible....

(Note: I'm going to say a lot of illogical things, so if anyone is easily offended, please stop reading now. Thank you.)

Triune
100% God/ 100% man
God-Man (this one makes me shutter)
Eternally begotten (what the heck does that even mean?)
Incarnation
Co-equal (Yeshua said "the Father is greater than I"
Co-eternal
"God became a man"
"God died" (What!)
"Jesus is God"
"'I am God', said Jesus"
"The LORD your God is three"
"Believe in the trinity, and ye shall be saved"
"'Who do you say I am?'...'You are the Messiah, the son of the living God'....'Great job Peter! Except for one tiny detail. I am actually the second person of the triune god. You see, I am the son "of" God, and I am also the only God. But I am not my own Father. The Father of the only God is the Father. He is also the only God. How is this possible, you ask? Well, me (who is God) and God, we are beyond logic, reason, and reality. The reason the trinity is beyond reality is simple.....it's not real. However, men will try to confuse you and tell you that the trinity is false. These men are heretics that I will burn forever and ever and ever and ever and ever and..."

I hope my parody doesn't offend you. I do not believe I wrote anything that is false about the trinity doctrine. There are other terms that could be added, but my brain is tired from trying to think of illogical sentences. If you'd like to discuss this, I'd be more than happy to.

"And this is life eternal (aionios zoe: age-enduring life), that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."

Thank you my friend and God bless you.

 

[ViaCrucis]

You also won't find the Biblical Canon mentioned anywhere in Scripture. Just sayin'.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[anonymouswho]

You also won't find the Biblical Canon mentioned anywhere in Scripture. Just sayin'.

-CryptoLutheran

Agreed. So there is no need to quote Paul as though he spoke of a triune God. We have the Scriptures, and they say absolutely nothing about a trinity. In the Scriptures, "the wisdom of God" is described as a "person". Would this make wisdom the fourth person of the quadinity?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Agreed. So there is no need to quote Paul as though he spoke of a triune God. We have the Scriptures, and they say absolutely nothing about a trinity. In the Scriptures, "the wisdom of God" is described as a "person". Would this make wisdom the fourth person of the quadinity?

Jesus is usually identified with personified Wisdom, so there's no reason to add a fourth.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[anonymouswho]

Jesus is usually identified with personified Wisdom, so there's no reason to add a fourth.

-CryptoLutheran

That was the same argument Arius used to say Yeshua was a created being.

"The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.
I was set up from everlasting (olam: ages/ages past...from everlasting doesn't make sense and that is why newer translations have abandoned this), from the beginning, or ever the earth was.
When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water." Proverbs 8:24

Arius argued that wisdom was Yeshua personified, and since God "brought forth" wisdom, then wisdom was created. It is now the established understanding of the churches that Proverbs 8 is simply poetry, with wisdom being personified.

So, wisdom is not Jesus. But it's still spoke of as a person and it comes from God...just like the "Holy Spirit". Thank you.

 

[ViaCrucis]

That was the same argument Arius used to say Yeshua was a created being.

"The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.
I was set up from everlasting (olam: ages/ages past...from everlasting doesn't make sense and that is why newer translations have abandoned this), from the beginning, or ever the earth was.
When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water." Proverbs 8:24

Arius argued that wisdom was Yeshua personified, and since God "brought forth" wisdom, then wisdom was created. It is now the established understanding of the churches that Proverbs 8 is simply poetry, with wisdom being personified.

So, wisdom is not Jesus. But it's still spoke of as a person and it comes from God...just like the "Holy Spirit". Thank you.

Regardless, the figure of Holy Wisdom is frequently identified with Jesus. St. Paul himself calls Jesus the "wisdom and power of God", the church of Hagia Sophia is named after Jesus, the full title is the Church of the Holy Wisdom of God, that is, Jesus Christ.

If I recall correctly it was Philo of Alexandria who, in trying to bridge the gap between Hellenistic and Jewish thinking brought together the Greek concept of the Logos and the Jewish concept of Wisdom, i.e, the figure of Wisdom is the Logos. Early Christians took Christ to be the Word and Wisdom of God, He is called Logos thereby identifying Him with the idea, in the Greek mind, of the all pervasive reason or logic which coheres the entire cosmos; and He is called God's Wisdom.

Consider,

"For, as we acknowledge a God, and a Son his Logos, and a Holy Spirit, united in essence—the Father, the Son, the Spirit, because the Son is the Intelligence, Reason, Wisdom of the Father, and the Spirit an effluence, as light from fire;" - Athenagoras, Apology ch. 24

The Son, who is eternal, is the Logos, the Wisdom and Intelligence and Mind of the Father, so begotten without beginning; the Holy Spirit proceeds as light from the flame.

The Son is begotten of the Father, not in time, but eternity.
The Spirit proceeds from the Father, not in time, but eternity.

And it is from the Father's own Deity that the Son and the Spirit have theirs, not of a different sort (heteroousios), not of a similar sort (homoiousios), but the very and same (homoousios). What the Father is, so is His Son, His Logos, and so is His Spirit.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[anonymouswho]

Regardless, the figure of Holy Wisdom is frequently identified with Jesus. St. Paul himself calls Jesus the "wisdom and power of God", the church of Hagia Sophia is named after Jesus, the full title is the Church of the Holy Wisdom of God, that is, Jesus Christ.

If I recall correctly it was Philo of Alexandria who, in trying to bridge the gap between Hellenistic and Jewish thinking brought together the Greek concept of the Logos and the Jewish concept of Wisdom, i.e, the figure of Wisdom is the Logos. Early Christians took Christ to be the Word and Wisdom of God, He is called Logos thereby identifying Him with the idea, in the Greek mind, of the all pervasive reason or logic which coheres the entire cosmos; and He is called God's Wisdom.

Consider,

"For, as we acknowledge a God, and a Son his Logos, and a Holy Spirit, united in essence—the Father, the Son, the Spirit, because the Son is the Intelligence, Reason, Wisdom of the Father, and the Spirit an effluence, as light from fire;" - Athenagoras, Apology ch. 24

The Son, who is eternal, is the Logos, the Wisdom and Intelligence and Mind of the Father, so begotten without beginning; the Holy Spirit proceeds as light from the flame.

The Son is begotten of the Father, not in time, but eternity.
The Spirit proceeds from the Father, not in time, but eternity.

And it is from the Father's own Deity that the Son and the Spirit have theirs, not of a different sort (heteroousios), not of a similar sort (homoiousios), but the very and same (homoousios). What the Father is, so is His Son, His Logos, and so is His Spirit.

-CryptoLutheran

Yes it was Philo that brought the pagan Stoics philosophy of some divine being called the Logos together with "the Word". He knew nothing of Yeshua. If Philo introduced some great mystery of God, and John was later influenced by him, then Philo wrote before any of these events happened. So did Philo prepare the way of YHVH, or John the Baptist?

You should also know that quoting Paul or some other theologian, is like quoting the bible to an atheist. As you said, men put together our canon, so I said there is no need to quote Paul. I can't say for sure what Paul believed, but his belief seems closer to Arianism than any sort of trinitarianism.

First, I need to see it in the Scriptures. Then, it needs to be confirmed by either the Gospels, one of the actual Apostles (I believe Peter write Hebrews), and I also believe Yacob has proven himself to know the truth.

As I said in the post Eternal Sonship....eternity is impossible. Outside of time is nonsense that Augustine made up. Why does he say a day is eternity to God, and the Scriptures say..

"For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night." Psalm 90:4

This is relatively, not some pagan, philosophical "mystery". Thank you.

 

[FredVB]

There are passages in the Bible, showing Yahweh is the one and only real God, the heavenly Father is certainly this God, Christ the Son is the incarnation of Logos, the Word with God who is God, and who is in prophecies speaking of Yahweh God, and the Spirit of God is spoken of in the role of God, and is listed in unity with the Father and the Son.

Yes, true. The Bible certainly doss imply a trinity, but it does not work it out in any detail. For example, is the Bible saying there are three separate, unique personalities here? Is the Bible saying that the Father is Christ as well?

No, the heavenly Father is not Christ, they each speak to one another in the scriptures. Though persons or personalities are not terms for them in the Bible, the terms are for useful concepts for what is being shown in the Bible, though unfortunately such terms are confusing to some. All the points were based directly on Bible passages, and though I have nothing against Paul none of those passages were from him. Though they are distinct in roles they are in greater unity than any other things, and the Bible shows that with being God, they are one being, together.

 

[Hoghead1]

No, the heavenly Father is not Christ, they each speak to one another in the scriptures. Though persons or personalities are not terms for them in the Bible, the terms are for useful concepts for what is being shown in the Bible, though unfortunately such terms are confusing to some. All the points were based directly on Bible passages, and though I have nothing against Paul none of those passages were from him. Though they are distinct in roles they are in greater unity than any other things, and the Bible shows that with being God, they are one being, together.

That does not answer my question, however.

 

[nothead]

Lol. Argumentum ad baculum from a Christian, huh?

What's a baculum? Sorry just trolling.

I know what Argumentum ad nauseum is. I argue this one all the time. Arguments make me vomit so I add some more just to return the favor.

 

[nothead]

No, the heavenly Father is not Christ, they each speak to one another in the scriptures. Though persons or personalities are not terms for them in the Bible, the terms are for useful concepts for what is being shown in the Bible, though unfortunately such terms are confusing to some. All the points were based directly on Bible passages, and though I have nothing against Paul none of those passages were from him. Though they are distinct in roles they are in greater unity than any other things, and the Bible shows that with being God, they are one being, together.

Define "being" sir. For a Jew this was the same thing as a Living Being. Three beings in One Being for them is being weird, sir.

They don't like "person" since this is too anthropomorphic. Instead for God they DO say "Being" but this is a SINGLE Being.

 

[nothead]

Yes it was Philo that brought the pagan Stoics philosophy of some divine being called the Logos together with "the Word". He knew nothing of Yeshua. If Philo introduced some great mystery of God, and John was later influenced by him, then Philo wrote before any of these events happened. So did Philo prepare the way of YHVH, or John the Baptist?

You should also know that quoting Paul or some other theologian, is like quoting the bible to an atheist. As you said, men put together our canon, so I said there is no need to quote Paul. I can't say for sure what Paul believed, but his belief seems closer to Arianism than any sort of trinitarianism.

First, I need to see it in the Scriptures. Then, it needs to be confirmed by either the Gospels, one of the actual Apostles (I believe Peter write Hebrews), and I also believe Yacob has proven himself to know the truth.

As I said in the post Eternal Sonship....eternity is impossible. Outside of time is nonsense that Augustine made up. Why does he say a day is eternity to God, and the Scriptures say..

"For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night." Psalm 90:4

This is relatively, not some pagan, philosophical "mystery". Thank you.

No need to quote Paul? Why does the Bible say the OTHER ONES got along with him, despite the fact that he never even WALKED with Jesus? Why does the NT say Paul and the others CONCLUDED the Council of Jerusalem in harmony?

You COULD say I got this from Paul's own writings. I SAY that the PEOPLE would not stand for this if he was lying. His epistles would NEVER HAVE GOTTEN into canon.

And in fact we would all have our penises circumcised if Paul wasn't correct. OR denoms which do and other denoms which don't. The harmony of the CHURCH over this issue is proof it WAS concluded in harmony.