What do you mean by "Trinity"?

[hedrick]

This "in the beginning" (John 1:1) would be the same as saying "before time and space began" -- eternity past. Before anything was created, the un-created God existed as three Divine Persons. That is why they said "Let US make man in OUR image." Elohim (God) is a uni-plural word which already reveals the Trinity in Gen 1:1.

The two commentaries I checked agree with this. Creation isn't until 1:3.

 

[ScottA]

Do not out words into my mouth or interpret my beliefs for me. Ask first. I did not say Scripture as all nonsense. I said that it is not all inerrant. The fact that something is not all inerrant does not mean it is nonsense. I reject either-or thinking. Either Scripture is all inerrant or it is worthless. Such either-or thinking is unrealistic and actually what underlies neurotic behavior, by the way. Reality is a shade of grey.

It is my witness that all scripture is from God, and that it is not even reasonable to think that men have had control of what goes forth in the name of God, and that God has not had control.

 

[Hoghead1]

You've paraphrased Thomas there so, no, it's not "precisely" what Thomas had to say.

Look, go and read Thomas for yourself, then. You will find he says exactly what I claim here.

 

[Hoghead1]

This "in the beginning" (John 1:1) would be the same as saying "before time and space began" -- eternity past. Before anything was created, the un-created God existed as three Divine Persons. That is why they said "Let US make man in OUR image." Elohim (God) is a uni-plural word which already reveals the Trinity in Gen 1:1.

I am inclined to think that Gen. is a veiled reference to polytheism, which the Israelites were subject to.

 

[Hoghead1]

You would get Tritheism only by looking at this with human logic. When all the Scriptures are compared, then we find that this is the Mystery of God. Hence beyond human logic. Can water be ice and vapor at the same time in the same container? Absolutely. That is simply an analogy.

Yes, I am using logic. That is what one should do. That's what God gave us reason for. Otherwise, God becomes the excuse for irrational, unrealistic thinking. The fact God is transcendent does not mean we should make irrational assumptions about God. Also, you brought up an analogy here. It would appear that you, yourself, are bringing human logic and experience into the picture.

 

[Colter]

Do you not think that the Son was there before creation?

* I think the Paradise Trinity is fixed, eternal and inevitable.

* I don't believe Jesus is the second person of the Trinity, I believe he is a Son of the Paradise Trinity.

* I believe Jesus existed before this world was, that Jesus, aka Christ Michael, had a beginning in eternity but we don't know when.

 

[Hoghead1]

It is my witness that all scripture is from God, and that it is not even reasonable to think that men have had control of what goes forth in the name of God, and that God has not had control.

Well, that is your thinking and your opinion. However, it can and has been seriously questioned. In my previous post, I explained some of the major reasons why.

 

[Righttruth]

Claiming that the Bible is the Word of God isn't found in the Bible, either, but people do it. The Word of God is God, not the Bible. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God."

People do lots of things that are deviations. They settle down with easy and convenient traditions and beliefs. The Word is not the same as words of the Bible.

 

[Erose]

* I think the Paradise Trinity is fixed, eternal and inevitable.

* I don't believe Jesus is the second person of the Trinity, I believe he is a Son of the Paradise Trinity.

* I believe Jesus existed before this world was, that Jesus, aka Christ Michael, had a beginning in eternity but we don't know when.

There is no beginning in Eternity nor is there a "when" either.

 

[Righttruth]

What book? I sure don't know of any. Yu need to provide evidence to back your statement. I have extensively studied the Apocrypha and I know that the term "Trinity" is not used. Fort one thing, it is a Greco-Latin term in origin.

Mine may be a different translator and publisher. Whatever, orthodox Trinity concept is erroneous.

 

[Righttruth]

It isn't just possible. The Bible claims that they definitely did.

Could be, since I have not spent much time on this.

 

[Hoghead1]

They never said there's more than one mind in God.

To my knowledge, classical Trinitarian thought does not claim that there are three minds. The Catholic Encyclopedia, which represents traditional Catholic view in the early 20th Cent, says there's one mind. "Granted that in the infinite mind, in which the categories are transcended, there are three relations which are subsistent realities, distinguished one from another in virtue of their relative opposition then it will follow that the same mind will have a three-fold consciousness, knowing itself in three ways in accordance with its three modes of existence." (article on the Trinity, Catholic Encyclopedia, newadvent.org)

The things that we normally think of as constituting a person actually go with the nature, not the Person. The only thing that isn't one is the relations. That's one reason we've all agreed that "Person" in Trinitarian theology is not the same as the common-language use of "person."

I don't think I trust your evaluation of whether a theology is modalist.

I'm with Erose on this one. I agree that persons in the common-language sense are beings, but God is one being. (Except of course when we get to the Incarnation, when the Logos is one being, but that's a different problem.)

I don't trust your evaluation of whether a theology is modalist. Look at what you said above. Yu said that the mind will have a threefold consciousness of its three modes of existence. That is modalism to the hilt. I strongly agree that traditional Trinitarian thought did not use the modern concept of a "person." What I disagree with is the tendency of many Christians to posit three minds, three subjectivities, within the Godhead. That is continually happening in this forum. And it is generally done in the name of fighting modalism.

 

[Colter]

There is no beginning in Eternity nor is there a "when" either.

When we become eternal will we have a past?

Did Jesus have glory with God before this world was?

 

[Erose]

I would strongly suggest you study this matter further. You are way, way off. You claim that "being" and "person" are separate concepts, for example. But that was never the case in theology.

. I have and found I'm not wrong. Something can "be" and not be a person. Granted every person is a being, which is true as well in the case of the Trinity, the only difference is that in God there is one being three Persons.

If you go back and read Thomas, you will find he affirms "person" as the highest form of "being."

. The definition he offers is for a person is: "Person” signifies what is most perfect in all nature---that is, a subsistent individual of a rational nature." And in the case of God, the term is defined as: "person” signifies in God a relation as subsisting in the divine nature.

Now he does say that a person is a substance, but he qualifies it by saying that whenever speaking of the Persons of the Trinity it always refers to "first substance" and never second. That is an extremely important distinction there.

Also, you should look carefully at this concept of teh Trinity. He makes it very clear the Trinity refers to internal relationships within the mind or personality of God, not three separate individuals or persons in our sense of the terms.

. Actually refers to the Persons as relations within the essence or being of God, and he does use the term individual to refer to those relations.

The Father stands for God. The Son stands for God's self-knowledge. The Spirit stands for God's love of his self-knowledge. Read or reread Ques. 33 and 34 in his "Summa."

The Father is fully God, the Son is fully God, and the Holy Spirit is Fully God, but not three gods, but one God.

 

[Erose]

When we become eternal will we have a past?

We won't become eternal, but immortal. After our resurrection, we will still have our physical bodies, physical objects exist in time, eternity is outside of time. We will always exist in time.

Did Jesus have glory with God before this world was?

Jesus or should we say the Son, has always had the glory of being God.

 

[Erose]

I don't trust your evaluation of whether a theology is modalist. Look at what you said above. Yu said that the mind will have a threefold consciousness of its three modes of existence. That is modalism to the hilt. I strongly agree that traditional Trinitarian thought did not use the modern concept of a "person." What I disagree with is the tendency of many Christians to posit three minds, three subjectivities, within the Godhead. That is continually happening in this forum. And it is generally done in the name of fighting modalism.

Your the only one that I see trying to impose on others that they are claiming three minds, I never have nor would I. The divine Persons have the same mind the same will, the same divinity, etc, That is a given. But at the same time we know that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are not the same Person.

 

[Hoghead1]

Your the only one that I see trying to impose on others that they are claiming three minds, I never have nor would I. The divine Persons have the same mind the same will, the same divinity, etc, That is a given. But at the same time we know that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are not the same Person.

In many other posts from other members and in some of yours, you did present God as a cosmic society of three separate, unique personalities, whether you care to admit to this or no. I was simply truing to correct that. You also presented some other weird arguments, such as the fact "person" was a wholly separate category from "being." I also corrected you on that, referring to what Thomas has to day.

 

[Hoghead1]

We won't become eternal, but immortal. After our resurrection, we will still have our physical bodies, physical objects exist in time, eternity is outside of time. We will always exist in time.


Jesus or should we say the Son, has always had the glory of being God.

Eternal means immortal, in theology.

 

[Hoghead1]

. I have and found I'm not wrong. Something can "be" and not be a person. Granted every person is a being, which is true as well in the case of the Trinity, the only difference is that in God there is one being three Persons.

. The definition he offers is for a person is: "Person” signifies what is most perfect in all nature---that is, a subsistent individual of a rational nature." And in the case of God, the term is defined as: "person” signifies in God a relation as subsisting in the divine nature.

Now he does say that a person is a substance, but he qualifies it by saying that whenever speaking of the Persons of the Trinity it always refers to "first substance" and never second. That is an extremely important distinction there.

. Actually refers to the Persons as relations within the essence or being of God, and he does use the term individual to refer to those relations.

The Father is fully God, the Son is fully God, and the Holy Spirit is Fully God, but not three gods, but one God.

That is completely contrary to what you said in an earlier post where you claimed "being" and "person" were wholly separate categories in theology. Do you understand what he is saying? Do you understand he is claiming that the persons represent dimensions of one mind, one personality? Do you understand that is precisely what modalism claims?

 

[Hoghead1]

Could be, since I have not spent much time on this.

Well, take some time and study up on it.